Jump to content

Introducing the Official community mod for Alpha 26


wraitii
 Share

Should these patches be merged in the Community Mod? II  

35 members have voted

  1. 1. Add Centurions: Upgradable at a cost of 100 food 50 metal from rank 3 swordsmen and spearmen. https://gitlab.com/0ad/0ad-community-mod-a26/-/merge_requests/27

    • Yes
      26
    • No
      5
    • Skip / No Opinion
      4
  2. 2. Alexander - Remove Territory Bonus Aura, add Attack, Speed, and Attack de-buff Auras https://gitlab.com/0ad/0ad-community-mod-a26/-/merge_requests/26

    • Yes
      25
    • No
      3
    • Skip / No Opinion
      7
  3. 3. Unit specific upgrades: 23 new upgrades found in stable/barracks for different soldier types. Tier 1 available in town phase, tier 2 available in city phase. https://gitlab.com/0ad/0ad-community-mod-a26/-/merge_requests/25

    • Yes
      16
    • No
      17
    • Skip / No Opinion
      2
  4. 4. Add a civ bonus for seleucids: Farms -25% resource cost, -75% build time. https://gitlab.com/0ad/0ad-community-mod-a26/-/merge_requests/24

    • Yes
      25
    • No
      5
    • Skip / No Opinion
      5
  5. 5. Cav speed -1 m/s for all cavalry https://gitlab.com/0ad/0ad-community-mod-a26/-/merge_requests/23

    • Yes
      13
    • No
      15
    • Skip / No Opinion
      7
  6. 6. Cavalry health adjustments https://gitlab.com/0ad/0ad-community-mod-a26/-/merge_requests/22

    • Yes
      9
    • No
      14
    • Skip / No Opinion
      12
  7. 7. Crush (re)balance: decreased crush armor for all units, clubmen/macemen get a small hack attack. https://gitlab.com/0ad/0ad-community-mod-a26/-/merge_requests/20

    • Yes
      14
    • No
      13
    • Skip / No Opinion
      8
  8. 8. Spearcav +15% acceleration. https://gitlab.com/0ad/0ad-community-mod-a26/-/merge_requests/19

    • Yes
      25
    • No
      2
    • Skip / No Opinion
      8
  9. 9. Pikemen decreased armor, increased damage: 8hack,7pierce armor; 6 pierce 3 hack damage. https://gitlab.com/0ad/0ad-community-mod-a26/-/merge_requests/18

    • Yes
      14
    • No
      13
    • Skip / No Opinion
      8
  10. 10. Rome camp allowed in p2, rams train in p3 as normal, decreased health and cost. https://gitlab.com/0ad/0ad-community-mod-a26/-/merge_requests/17

    • Yes
      27
    • No
      3
    • Skip / No Opinion
      5
  11. 11. Crossbow nerf: +400 ms prepare time. https://gitlab.com/0ad/0ad-community-mod-a26/-/merge_requests/15

    • Yes
      10
    • No
      13
    • Skip / No Opinion
      12
  12. 12. adjust javelineer and pikemen roles, rework crush armor https://gitlab.com/0ad/0ad-community-mod-a26/-/merge_requests/14

    • Yes
      6
    • No
      20
    • Skip / No Opinion
      9


Recommended Posts

54 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

I think this would partially invalidate the value of infantry mercenaries.

I would rather melee inf be more impactful in the first place (not just meatshield, but actually dealing damage). I have an idea for this and I will make a MR for it in the a27 community mod.

I took the post to mean that you could do some sort of upgrades once at level 2. Kind of like centurions are at level 3. Not sure what upgrade there should be, though 

Agree with the second part. 

54 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

I think this would partially invalidate the value of infantry mercenaries.

I would rather melee inf be more impactful in the first place (not just meatshield, but actually dealing damage). I have an idea for this and I will make a MR for it in the a27 community mod.

I took the post to mean that you could do some sort of upgrades once at level 2. Kind of like centurions are at level 3. Not sure what upgrade there should be, though 

Agree with the second part. 

Edit: I also question whether experiment where mercs producing at rank 2 has failed. It's caused huge balance issues and isn't particularly interesting (see @wowgetoffyourcellphone above). I wonder if we should try a different route. Maybe making merc produce super quickly.

I've also thought that since mercs fight for the highest bidder that maybe they should be convertible (i.e., you can bribe a portion of the opposing army to change sides and fight for you. I'm not sure if the game even supports that, though. Convertible units would prevent pure spam strategies if mercs get trained super quickly.

Edited by chrstgtr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

All other civs have it in the forge. I am unsure why its in the barracks/stable.

 

17 minutes ago, Gurken Khan said:

I think it should be in the forge.

I think I put it there because, frankly, it doesn't make sense in the Forge. It's not a weapon or armor upgrade, it's a training thing. Also, put it there as a differentiator, but it's a small change so I'm not wed to it. But for real, maybe investigate moving Archery Training to the Barracks for every archer civ. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Well consider this: since ranged units account for between 70 to 95 percent of the damage from a given army, and they target the closest unit by default, then without any sniping, melee units will always die first even if they have 100 pierce armor.

If melee units dealt more damage, their survival would now depend on both the enemy melee units as well as ranged units.

Should a player invest in some stronger melee units and get melee upgrades, their more rapid success against the weaker enemy melee units will force the exposed ranged units to retreat.

So basically the rationale is this: give melee units a much improved share of impact in terms of determining the outcome of a fight, and balance them accordingly by reducing the armor a little.

there is demand to buff melee inf, so just buff melee inf. at this point you are just trying to keep melee inf bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, hyperion said:

The most sane proposal in this thread wrt. this issue made by @Feldfeld to half all ranged damage seems to get categorically ignored.

Indeed. Ranged damage should be a nice bonus or harrasser, not the primary damager of an army. Even range-heavy civs like Persians and Han would have had to engage with their melee troops to decide the matter, let alone the Romans and Greeks and Celts who all used ranged troops in a secondary or even tertiary role.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, borg- said:

Sure, so maybe a new movement speed tech? Can help melee infantry engane on cavalry/range inf

I’ve been saying this for awhile. It’s logically consistent with what we have (farther range units move slowest) and should also help balance by slowing melee to engage

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, hyperion said:

Sorry to say, but this should have been split into five patches. A patch that reads as squash unrelated changes is plain awful.

Well, yeah I agree on principle, but they are technically related as they are all in the community mod and were highly supported.

IMO better to increase melee damage than decrease ranged damage. But I guess they have similar outcomes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Well, yeah I agree on principle, but they are technically related as they are all in the community mod and were highly supported.

IMO better to increase melee damage than decrease ranged damage. But I guess they have similar outcomes. 

Agree. If you decrease range it will have a whole series of cascading impacts, such as turtling becoming much stronger. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

I would be happy with this to be honest. Then the carthage team bonus could be changed.

Maybe this would be something to experiment with in the community mod as well.

Yeah, I’m just worried about it becoming a spam meta where mercs dominate. But, yeah, definitely something to try in the community, if there is interest

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Increasing melee attack damage also nerfs turtling. :) The counter to turtling should be rush or siege weapons, right, not archer range? :) 

I mean arrows from buildings will become relatively more impactful because armies would kill roughly half as fast 

There will be other impacts too, but making armies half as effective at killing units will have huge ripple effects. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, alre said:

there is demand to buff melee inf, so just buff melee inf. at this point you are just trying to keep melee inf bad.

Your statement is uninformed and not helpful. @real_tabasco_sauce’s entire idea is to buff melee units. @borg- and I have proposed an alternative idea that could be used in conjunction with @real_tabasco_sauce’s idea or by itself. All share the common idea of buffing melee units. Your statement is the equivalent if the 300 pound sports fan yelling at a player to run faster—it isn’t helpful, it’s not telling anyone anything they don’t already know, and it’s negative towards the people who are actually trying to do something. Randomly dropping in to say “no” isn’t constructive discussion

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

19 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

Your statement is uninformed and not helpful.

what should I be informed about? btw, I don't see no branch.

By the way, I'd rather say that I generally adverse the idea that shorter range must be faster, and I loathe the idea of this principle being applied to all infantry, including melee. it can only make the game more bland and unrelatable, with basically all units filling the same purpose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, alre said:

what should I be informed about? btw, I don't see no branch

 

Read back, @real_tabasco_sauce and I discuss it extensively a few pages back. You also flatly rejected something that is explicitly meant to improve and which, as you said, doesn’t have a branch yet. 
 

16 minutes ago, alre said:

By the way, I'd rather say that I generally adverse the idea that shorter range must be faster, and I loathe the idea of this principle being applied to all infantry, including melee. it can only make the game more bland and unrelatable, with basically all units filling the same purpose.

This is axiomatic.

Again, you just say “no” without saying why. It’s like if I reply saying: “I love the principle and it should be applied to all infantry, including melee. It will only make the game more exciting and relatable, with all units filling the right purpose.” See, it’s just conclusions with no reasons given. It’s not a constructive discussion—it’s a monologue that just says “no, no, no.” If you want to be helpful say what you want AND “why, why, why.”

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...