Introducing the Official community mod for Alpha 26

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

21 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

The more I play, the more I think this is the answer. Not sure if it is necessary for towers but I am leaning towards no. 

 

 

I don't think the meta has really been figured out yet. I think we still need to wait to see how things shake out. With that said...the below are all things that I was independently thinking. 

 

I also think there is a general problem with how champions aren't being made as much anymore. I like how melee is being made more now. But that diversity has come at the cost of less cav and champs. Personally, both neither system is better than the other for me. But I do think we could make the current system better to address the cav and champ issues. 

 

 

Interestingly, quite a few players particularly Havran have argued that champions have become meta. I'm not saying I agree. In fact my argument so far about balance is that its actually pretty good. It is truly a weird situation to have almost every player claim one thing or another is OP with some certainty, all while having very little agreement. Clearly the meta has been more elusive than everyone thinks. 

If there is any one thing that I think most people can agree is now OP it is spartans and athenians, the reasons being several bonuses and heroes that combine particularly well with the melee rebalance:

• iphricates (previously determined to be OP): seems to be more important now that melee units have less armor
• Leonidas: the damage addition to spearmen is much more significant now that the base rate is increased
• Skiritai commandos start rank 3 which is now a much stronger advantage over rank 1
• hoplite tradition: improved rank up speed means hoplites can reach rank 2/3 in one good fight, fast enough to make a big difference in the fight in which they rank up.

Combining these civ specific bonuses with the melee rebalance has led to melee units from these civs being too strong. I think removing armor from melee rankup bonuses, and nerfing iphricates would solve these concerns effectively.

 

 

[Lion.Kanzen]

20 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

I would say I have seen less cavalry champions and more infantry champions.

Splash damage, cavalry has trample advantage.

[chrstgtr]

1 hour ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

Interestingly, quite a few players particularly Havran have argued that champions have become meta. I'm not saying I agree. In fact my argument so far about balance is that its actually pretty good. It is truly a weird situation to have almost every player claim one thing or another is OP with some certainty, all while having very little agreement. Clearly the meta has been more elusive than everyone thinks. 

If there is any one thing that I think most people can agree is now OP it is spartans and athenians, the reasons being several bonuses and heroes that combine particularly well with the melee rebalance:

• iphricates (previously determined to be OP): seems to be more important now that melee units have less armor
• Leonidas: the damage addition to spearmen is much more significant now that the base rate is increased
• Skiritai commandos start rank 3 which is now a much stronger advantage over rank 1
• hoplite tradition: improved rank up speed means hoplites can reach rank 2/3 in one good fight, fast enough to make a big difference in the fight in which they rank up.

Combining these civ specific bonuses with the melee rebalance has led to melee units from these civs being too strong. I think removing armor from melee rankup bonuses, and nerfing iphricates would solve these concerns effectively.

Iphri already got a nerf. It just isn’t in the mod yet. 
 

I also think we should consider just a general nerf to melee attack dmg instead of increasing health. It will have the same impact of making battles last longer without further nerfing range units. Melee is stronger now because once they get to range units they really rip them apart. Giving melee more health will let melee do that more effectively. 

[real_tabasco_sauce]

@chrstgtr The reason I suggested all units + hp was because people argue units in general die too fast. 

If that issue is specifically ranged units dying too fast to melee, we could either give ranged units a health buff or decrease melee damage a little. I would prefer increasing ranged health, but a smallish damage nerf could also be fine.

[chrstgtr]

1 hour ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

@chrstgtr The reason I suggested all units + hp was because people argue units in general die too fast. 

If that issue is specifically ranged units dying too fast to melee, we could either give ranged units a health buff or decrease melee damage a little. I would prefer increasing ranged health, but a smallish damage nerf could also be fine.

The problem with changing hp is that it has a lot of downstream effects. It changes building/unit balance, inf/cav balance, melee/range balance, etc. It just seems a lot cleaner to to nerf the melee attack dmg. Otherwise, we just create more problems for ourselves. 

Also, the changes of the melee patch suggest that changes to melee attack dmg are the problem. The melee patch gave a major buff to melee BUT gave a nerf to range attack dmg. That means units are dying faster because of melee's buff despite range's nerf. 

The problem has to be that melee are killing range too quickly. The old meta had melee killing each other in the middle before breaking through and slowly killing the range. The new meta still has melee killing each other in the middle before breaking through and quickly killing the range. Sniping is present in both metas but that doesn't change anything. Battles are only ending quicker once there is a breakthrough and melee are able to rip through the range. 

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

30 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

That means units are dying faster because of melee's buff despite range's nerf.

the change to net damage across all units is definitely smaller than the net change to units durability (melee lost armor). The driver of any net ttk change is because of the reduction of melee armor. Before this mod, battles felt slower because either before or after sniping there was this damage sponge you had to kill.

I think one reason why melee seem to kill ranged units faster is because they rank up while killing them and this increases their damage, hp, and armor further. I think further changes to melee/ranged balance aren't clear, but reduction to the rank up bonuses of melee is a clear change.

[chrstgtr]

1 hour ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

the change to net damage across all units is definitely smaller than the net change to units durability (melee lost armor). The driver of any net ttk change is because of the reduction of melee armor. Before this mod, battles felt slower because either before or after sniping there was this damage sponge you had to kill.

Disagree. But assuming you're right then armor should increase. 

The underlying point is that changing hp will certainly have downriver effects that are unintended and will cause a cascade of imbalances. The underlying cause of quicker battles (whether that is armor or melee dmg) should be addressed instead of changing yet another variable. 

1 hour ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

I think one reason why melee seem to kill ranged units faster is because they rank up while killing them and this increases their damage, hp, and armor further. I think further changes to melee/ranged balance aren't clear, but reduction to the rank up bonuses of melee is a clear change.

I don't think anyone disagrees on this and @real_tabasco_sauce hit it on the head when he said that melee rank up was an old hot fix for melee balance that didn't actually fix the underlying melee balance problem. 

I've always said that melee was strong against range and that the problem was melee's inability to reach range units. All of these other melee advantages v. range get enlarged when melee units actually get engage range units.  

[Atrik]

It's getting confusing as what the re-balance was about. Right now cavs die fast into melees with spears but they have to be rewarded when striking ranged units. The effects of losing units very fast when facing counters goes both ways and the use of ranged unit seems to not have been put apart with the mod.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

Yes @chrstgtr melee has always been strong vs ranged units, but crucial difference is that before melee was strong because of its armor. Instead of killing the ranged units it’s just that they would take a long time to die.

Then there was a ton of time for the ranged player to retreat.

now, the difference is the melee units still die in a similar time, but can actually get kills. The issue is perhaps that they do this too fast.

i think a lot of players are not retreating their ranged units because they are used to the ranged units not dying so fast.

but yes I think for sure we should either remove armor bonus or damage bonus from melee rank ups.

[Atrik]

10 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

If there is any one thing that I think most people can agree is now OP it is spartans and athenians, the reasons being several bonuses and heroes that combine particularly well with the melee rebalance:

• iphricates (previously determined to be OP): seems to be more important now that melee units have less armor
• Leonidas: the damage addition to spearmen is much more significant now that the base rate is increased
• Skiritai commandos start rank 3 which is now a much stronger advantage over rank 1
• hoplite tradition: improved rank up speed means hoplites can reach rank 2/3 in one good fight, fast enough to make a big difference in the fight in which they rank up.

+ Steel Working tech.

Make sens to address locally the things that definitively op. Not even sure everybody would agree with all the points above. Strong combos aren't necessarily too op.

[leopard]

12 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

On 07/02/2024 at 12:50 AM, leopard said:

 

I've been talking about fire damage to buildings for a while now.

 

With torches and units carrying vases of tar.

yes I think 0AD cannot ignore fire damage too long. eventually it will be added in game. 

[Stan`]

The question is not when but by who.

Ideally we'd have bb' secondary attack, so that ranged units can attack with crappy melee weapons, and maybe we extend that to change weapons depending on target classes.

As for fire itself we support it through status effects (e.g. maurya guard and iber cavalry)

[Lion.Kanzen]

1 minute ago, Stan` said:

The question is not when but by who.

Ideally we'd have bb' secondary attack, so that ranged units can attack with crappy melee weapons, and maybe we extend that to change weapons depending on target classes.

As for fire itself we support it through status effects (e.g. maurya guard and iber cavalry)

Apart from the secondary attack, have you guys already reviewed how that fire mechanic will work?

bb still active?

[Stan`]

1 hour ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

Apart from the secondary attack, have you guys already reviewed how that fire mechanic will work?

Fire is already in the game. As for balancing no. And for bb's activity I'd say no

[leopard]

6 hours ago, Stan` said:

The question is not when but by who.

I think we can copy the gameplay of AOE4, 
that is, when melee attack buildings they attack with fire, we can bring this as a purchasable upgrade from barracks or fort.
I don't know it if is historically accurate but we can bring a new upgrade to archers/ranged so that they can attack with fire arrows.

Edited February 8 by leopard

[AIEND]

21小时前，Lion.Kanzen 说：

确切地说，大象在战斗中必须造成大量伤害（溅射）。 即使移动也会造成损坏。

From my experience, you can add an aura to the war elephant that deals damage to surrounding cavalry and infantry, or make the war elephant's attack itself splash.
According to your idea, we can have sputtering and auras at the same time.

[AIEND]

6 小时前，斯坦 说：

游戏中已经发生了火灾。 至于平衡没有。 对于 bb 的活动我会说不

It is necessary to add resistance to fire to different types of buildings, and some buildings such as stone walls should not be ignited.
I have edited these values myself and I feel that using fire as the main siege method for cavalry and infantry is feasible.

[AIEND]

I think the military buildings themselves should be armed and not lose control due to the loss of CC. At the same time, whether they are towers or fortresses, their own firepower should be strong enough without relying on the soldiers stationed there. We should encourage players to use Infantry and cavalry were placed outside towers and fortresses, and under the cover of arrows, they engaged enemy soldiers directly.
At the same time, barracks and stables should be able to fire arrows after garrisoning soldiers. Otherwise, garrisoning soldiers simply to prevent the enemy from occupying these buildings will result in fewer soldiers who can directly attack the enemy (especially siege weapons).

[leopard]

I think latest version has made the game harder. I prefer cavalry to be more effective but the new version made them weak, may be we should add more speed to them?

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

@leopard

I've found that cavalry only compositions are very rare and hard to pull off. I've had some successful cav play and some disasters myself. A lot of players are having success with some cavalry and some infantry, sometimes operating independently. I think the main change has been that cavalry is not universally superior to infantry as it was before the mod, which is good. A balance challenge emerges for civs like persians whose strengths lie mostly in cav.

[leopard]

5 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

I think the main change has been that cavalry is not universally superior to infantry as it was before the mod, which is good

I don't think it is a good idea to make cavalry inferior to infantry. cavalry in history was superior to infantry if we change that for sake of a stupid balance issue 0AD will be a stupid game to play. I feel stupid playing with this new version if stronger units are useless in battle. if we are trying to make cavalry = infantry then reduce the food cost of cavalry 

50 food 50 wood cav would make sense then. also why they die too fast?

[leopard]

I think we should play test the changes before finalizing them

 

[Lion.Kanzen]

3 hours ago, leopard said:

cavalry in history was superior

Not always. But yes in that context of the video they should not die so easily, they should do more damage or not be reached.

The pikeman should have less projectile defense(pierce).

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

@leopard you are playtesting them. Thanks for your efforts. The pikemen here are rank 3, melee units have added damage, armor, and hp with each rank, compared to ranged units which only get accuracy and hp. The strength of melee rankups is acknowledged to be a problem by most players, so there will be some reduction to the rankup bonuses. Try the same scenario with rank 1 units from both types and you'll find it much easier to kill the pikemen.

Edited February 13 by BreakfastBurrito_007

[Lion.Kanzen]

It is also necessary to test these units with other units, that is to say with infantry in between.

 

It will always depend on the context.