Page MenuHomeWildfire Games



User Details

User Since
Sep 21 2019, 3:08 PM (75 w, 5 d)

Recent Activity

Jan 19 2021

ValihrAnt added a comment to rP24693: [Gameplay] - Let Spartans start with a Champion..

I'd rather revert. We can experiment with this for a25

Jan 19 2021, 6:57 PM
ValihrAnt raised a concern with rP24693: [Gameplay] - Let Spartans start with a Champion..

Me and Feldfeld tried this out in a 1vs1 and the champion provides an early advantage that is very hard to deal with. The early champion forces the opposing player to either abandon his starting woodline or take heavy loses fighting back against the champion.

Jan 19 2021, 6:43 PM
ValihrAnt added a comment to D3413: Add an option to force "no formation" for non-walk orders, but not have a default walk formation..

"Only Walk" & no default formation -> You can put units in formation manually, but giving a 'gather' order disbands the formation.

This one is very nice.
In test games we had players confused on how to change the default formation so making it more obvious would also be good.

Jan 19 2021, 5:11 PM
ValihrAnt added a comment to D3366: [gameplay] Rework attack forge techs.

What about having 3 levels of upgrades? Currently getting any military upgrades in Phase 2 is unfeasible because they cost so much. Having 3 levels of upgrades, with 2 available in Phase 2 with scaling cost but not bonus. So say 300F +150W for the first upgrade and a 10% attack bonus. Second upgrade costing 450F + 250M for another 10% attack bonus and so on. It would also allow to withhold upgrades from some civilizations, depending on what they historically excelled at, without hurting them as much.

Jan 19 2021, 1:13 PM

Jan 18 2021

ValihrAnt added a comment to D3412: [gameplay] let spart start with a champion.

The only way i see this being used is to send the unit over to the enemy right away and cause guaranteed idle time. Kind of like the briton war dog just with less mobility, more hp and higher damage output.

Jan 18 2021, 2:12 PM

Jan 17 2021

ValihrAnt accepted D3401: [gameplay] restore civic centre garrison healing.

Playing without this made early aggression much less viable

Jan 17 2021, 7:39 PM

Dec 28 2020

ValihrAnt added a comment to D3246: [gameplay] increase advanced and elite and lower champion ranged attack damage.

Ranged units already dominate gameplay and this would make it worse. If we really want consistency then either ranged units need an overall nerf or this needs to be removed from melee units.

Dec 28 2020, 9:29 PM
ValihrAnt added a comment to D2801: [gameplay] enable stable for all civilizations.

@ValihrAnt what you think about this patch?

Seems fine to me, I don't know how exactly it will impact gameplay, but it's moving towards the right direction - where strategic choices are more impactful.

Dec 28 2020, 3:34 PM

Dec 24 2020

ValihrAnt raised a concern with rP24415: Let units take time actual time for turning while moving. This limits the….

Me and borg had a quick test game on r24446 and encountered some issues. The biggest one was with formation and unit rotation. In the fight starting at min 5 the archers entered a formation. Whenever a soldier from the formation was killed the archers went to regroup and due to the rotation often lost out on multiple seconds of attacking. Over a fight this adds up to a huge amount and was probably the deciding factor in him losing that battle.
Secondly, I had an issue in get my wardog unstuck from between the berry gatherers. The reason is probably what borg mentioned earlier that spam clicking doesn't work and considering that, at least in my case, the method for getting units unstuck is to spam click small distances ahead I was unable to free it. So I had to move my berry gatherers away for a second.
In general, we both came to the conclusion that the current amount of rotation feels too much and too clunky. I think a bit of rotation is good, but it needs to not interfere with gameplay too much and keep it feeling smooth. Now whether that is achievable without leaving dancing alive I don't know but it could also be tried in combination with the units have some bit of 'aimbot'.

Dec 24 2020, 9:50 PM

Dec 23 2020

ValihrAnt added a comment to D2856: [gameplay] redo nisean_horses technology.

Personally not a big fan of adding increased cost. What about getting rid of that and reducing the health increase by 5 or 10 percent?

Dec 23 2020, 7:23 PM
ValihrAnt accepted D2939: [gameplay] delete armor_hero_01 technology.

More opnions?

It's a tech I've never used and see no real point in, at least not currently.

Dec 23 2020, 7:12 PM
ValihrAnt accepted D3234: [gameplay] tweak maceman attacks.

I like it, it gives the macemen a clear role in being the 'siege' weapon of Phase 2. Combined with the nuba village being buildable in neutral territory this can lead to some very cool aggressive strategies.

Dec 23 2020, 7:08 PM

Dec 22 2020

ValihrAnt added a comment to D3242: [Proposal] Make player entities more visible on minimap.

Definitely an upgrade in seeing enemy units on the minimap. For an extreme example, currently, the black color is nearly invisible on the map Volcanic Lands.
Obviously consistency between player colors on the minimap and elsewhere won't be there anymore, so doing 50% contrast seems safer than 100%. Also, is it possible to change the border contrast too? Because the black border color still remains invisible on Volcanic Lands.

Dec 22 2020, 11:49 AM

Dec 20 2020

ValihrAnt added a comment to D3235: [gameplay] standardize archer attack speeds.

For example, it is ridiculous to have a champion archer with a rate of 500, on the other hand, with the rate of 1000 proposed by the patch, it is below an edvance or elite level archer.

Ranged units on promotion don't gain faster attack speed, but maybe I'm missing something.

Dec 20 2020, 12:05 PM

Dec 19 2020

ValihrAnt accepted D3231: [gameplay] sword/axeman cavalry balance move speed.

It's a small change meant to be a start for a series of multiple smaller changes that aim to improve the balance between cavalry units, which I think is good.

Dec 19 2020, 9:32 PM

Dec 18 2020

ValihrAnt added a comment to D3231: [gameplay] sword/axeman cavalry balance move speed.

To adjust this I prefer to divide it into small patches to facilitate the analysis.

Can I ask what else you plan to change? If you want to make spear cavalry excel mainly at countering other cavalry then it makes sense for them to at least match the speed, but they should also struggle a bit more in fights vs non-cavalry units then.

Dec 18 2020, 3:17 PM

Dec 17 2020

ValihrAnt accepted D3232: [gameplay] slinger attack speed adjustment.

Looking at the animation things are fine. Balance wise, I don't know, I doubt it will be able to make them much better or worse but might as well see.

Dec 17 2020, 3:04 PM

Nov 20 2020

ValihrAnt added a comment to D2886: [gameplay] introduce crossbowman templates.

(They _are_ in the game already.)

What I meant is available to be trained by a civilization, so we can see how they actually behave in a real game.

Nov 20 2020, 8:57 PM
ValihrAnt added a comment to D2886: [gameplay] introduce crossbowman templates.

@badosu, @borg-, @ValihrAnt, any opinions on the proposed values?
For comparison:

pierce damage / reload time = damage per second ; maximum range
champion archer (unchange): 6.5 / 0.5 = 13 ; 76
current champion crossbowman: 6.5 / 3 = 2.2 ; 76
proposed champion crossbowman: 40 / 3 = 13.3 ; 60

I think having their dps be about the same as archers is fine for now. When they are in the game we will be able to see how their lower fire rate plays out and adjust accordingly from there.

Nov 20 2020, 4:38 PM
ValihrAnt accepted D2992: [gameplay] remove structure <Loot/xp>.

Buildings giving loot is rarely a factor due to buildings generally being destroyed by siege weapons.

Nov 20 2020, 1:23 PM
ValihrAnt added a comment to D2992: [gameplay] remove structure <Loot/xp>.

Should changes be requested? Or should we go with this first?

I'm happy either way. Though, I think it would be better to remove xp from buildings entirely rather than increase it, due to how rarely it comes into play.

Nov 20 2020, 10:18 AM

Nov 19 2020

ValihrAnt accepted D1762: [gameplay] give Fortress a territory root.

It's an interesting change and will be good to see how it plays out in multiplayer.

Nov 19 2020, 9:32 PM
ValihrAnt accepted D2992: [gameplay] remove structure <Loot/xp>.

It's an improvement. While it's rare that any unit which benefits from experience will attack buildings it still happens occasionally. Could probably even increase the amount of xp by multiple times, because players will only try to destroy buildings with units when they have an overwhelming mass, so each unit getting an average of 5 experience for destroying a fortress seems very negligible.

Nov 19 2020, 9:14 PM
ValihrAnt added a comment to D2996: [gameplay] Move bireme to village phase and balance..

Some civilizations do not have bireme it does not seem like a problem with the patch, this makes players make better decisions about which civilization to choose on water maps, maybe brit/gauls not a better choose.

I very much dislike that some civs can have an automatic civ lose situation.
I did a test game with ffm (Britons) vs me (Carthaginians) on Islands. Obviously I was able to get a big mass of ships before he reached P2. While he probably could've fought back if I left my ships ungarrisoned there was no chance with just 2 being fully garrisoned and a bunch of empty ships around them soaking damage. Another little problem is that if I wanted to I could keep him from fighting back at all, that is by putting 3 biremes around a dock I can deny his warship from ever being released.
With this change Gauls and Britons will become nearly useless on water, while I think Iberians could be fine due to having the fireship. So, either biremes need to be nerfed further or the Celtic civilizations could receive some sort of early game buff on water.

Nov 19 2020, 4:56 PM
ValihrAnt added a comment to D1762: [gameplay] give Fortress a territory root.

If territory root were to be enabled for the fortress then I think the territory radius should be lowered. That way it will still let players keep the buildings nearby the fortress, but will make it much harder to go on without a new Civic center. I think it will still be frequent that players will not lose hold of a majority of their buildings as the buildings will just chain territory and thus the territory root, but will make it a bit more unlikely.

Nov 19 2020, 4:20 PM

Nov 14 2020

ValihrAnt added a comment to D2996: [gameplay] Move bireme to village phase and balance..

Increasing your cost is also interesting.

Don't think cost should be increased.

with this patch, one trireme defeats two biremes, but loses to three

I think that's a good spot for now. I presume you did the testing with the ships ungarrisoned, in which case the arrow count difference is 200%. When the ships are fully garrisoned the difference is 18%. Keep in mind that going up to Phase 2 costs the same as 10 soldiers. I'd presume the stronger eco of remaining in Phase 1 would also allow to get the armor upgrade much more easily.
Basically I'm unsure how this would play out without some testing.

Nov 14 2020, 3:44 PM
ValihrAnt added a comment to D2972: [gameplay] Increase hack damage of pikemen.

What about giving them an attack bonus vs siege? They are already the strongest infantry unit in the game by far due to how tanky they are. Giving them the attack bonus would make them a little bit better vs siege while not buffing them too much.

Nov 14 2020, 11:32 AM
ValihrAnt added a comment to D2996: [gameplay] Move bireme to village phase and balance..

I'm not a fan of this unless some test games show it to be and improvement. Islands games become super simplistic. It's all about just doing biremes from the get go and the snowball effect will be massive. You can't do fishing ships because then you get outnumbered and lose. It also pretty much means that very rarely will games go to Phase 2 since players won't have the eco for it. Even if they decide to sacrifice all map control for Phase 2 and Triremes it's not worth it due to Triremes not being so much stronger than Biremes.
In other maps where water control is an extra it could be an improvement over the current Phase 2 only warships, by adding another early point of contention. Although at the same time it could be a detriment because the defending player will always be ready to defend, because the attacking player can't rush to Phase 2 and catch the enemy offguard.

Nov 14 2020, 11:19 AM

Nov 2 2020

ValihrAnt added a comment to D2955: [gameplay] more realistic cavalry speed.

Vali patch is outdated.
The speed of jave cavalry is the same as that of archers, the path does not change this.

That's exactly the problem. Why are the Ptolemies so strong? Because most civs don't have a counter to their cavalry archers in p1. What am I meant to do if I'm the Athenians, Gauls, Britons, Iberians, Seleucids or Spartans? I can't counter with javelin cavalry or any infantry due to hit and run. I can't counter with towers because the camel archers can either outrange them or take an alternate angle. The only chance for me to win in that matchup is hope the enemy makes a very big mistake either in their micro or macro.

Nov 2 2020, 10:52 AM

Jun 19 2020

ValihrAnt updated the diff for D2720: update information in {civ}.json files.

Removed kennel.
Changed Carthaginian trade bonus name to "Commercial Acumen".

Jun 19 2020, 7:05 PM

Jun 16 2020

ValihrAnt added a comment to D2720: update information in {civ}.json files.

To be clear, those I listed earlier were the once I remembered; I didn't check all templates, so there are probably a few more.

I guess if more are found they can be added later.

Also, what's your opinion on "Special": → "Description": (to display the structure strings in the civilization overview)?

Wouldn't screen constraints be a problem? With this patch, the Persian Special Technologies alone go almost to the very bottom of the tab. Though in general, I think it would be best to display a description of what the building does because just the name of the unique building may not convey its purpose.

Jun 16 2020, 9:13 PM
ValihrAnt updated the diff for D2720: update information in {civ}.json files.

Moved the listed order of some buildings to fit with the Structure Tree.
Removed build limits from the Special strings.
Added bonuses that were hidden in template files. I struggled in thinking up names and descriptions, so plenty of room for improvement there I think, especially for the Iberians.
Changed "Special" for the Lighthouse, removed it from the Library.

Jun 16 2020, 12:21 PM

Jun 15 2020

ValihrAnt updated the diff for D2720: update information in {civ}.json files.

Fix an unnecessary space.

Jun 15 2020, 2:30 PM
ValihrAnt updated the diff for D2720: update information in {civ}.json files.

Removed "."
Adjusted wording for Gaul, Briton, Roman, and Ptolemy bonuses. About half of the Celtic buildings provide a population bonus, if not counting the house, CCs, Wonder and Fort so I used "Some" instead of "Most"
Removed incorrect history from Rotary Mill, removed unnecessary text from Revered Monument.
Split Kushite pyramids
Adjusted "Archery Tradition" to reflect that it affects all archers not just infantry.

Jun 15 2020, 2:26 PM
ValihrAnt added inline comments to D2720: update information in {civ}.json files.
Jun 15 2020, 12:45 PM
ValihrAnt added a comment to D2720: update information in {civ}.json files.

Sorry, I clearly made the changes quite hurriedly and didn't carefully double-check for mistakes wasting your time. I also added some inline comments for the things I'm unsure about.

Jun 15 2020, 12:34 PM
ValihrAnt added a comment to D2815: [gameplay] give all civs rams.

Wrt rams vs rams: Afaik swordmen are quite effective against rams aren't they?

Macedonians don't have sword units at all, which is the main reason they are almost never seen in MP. A similar story for the Seleucids and Ptolemies, but they get them from the Military colony, which is a big investment to set up and even then takes a while to mass up enough swordsmen to counter siege. The good thing for the Ptolemies is that their early game is so strong they'll be way ahead and already have elephants before rams will generally arrive.

Isn't this another step into making the different civs indistinguishable?

In my opinion rams are a unit that should be available to all civs. Civs should be distinguished by unique bonuses, buildings and units, and the unique strategies those make available, not by lacking an, in my opinion, base unit. All civs having rams doesn't mean they must be the same either as upgrades for them can be withheld from some civs to incentivize players to opt for other siege weapons unless they see a good opportunity to use rams.

Jun 15 2020, 10:15 AM
ValihrAnt updated the diff for D2720: update information in {civ}.json files.

All structures in the Civilization Overview tab now use the generic name.
Added the buildings I had missed and Nescio mentioned.
Added Civilization Bonus entries for the Britons, Gauls, Ptolemies and Romans. Feedback and suggestions on how to better word them would be appreciated. Another problem is that the Roman siege engine bonus is inconsistent between the siege engines so the Civilization Overview entry has to be vague or very, very long.

Jun 15 2020, 10:01 AM
ValihrAnt accepted D2815: [gameplay] give all civs rams.

I don't know about historical accuracy, but from a gameplay perspective, this makes a lot of sense. Currently, Seleucids and Ptolemies need to use elephants, which are much easier to counter, as rams if they want to go for a quick push. Kushites are forced to use elephants if they want to push at all. This patch would free up elephants to be used more like they were in history and will make seeing elephants used as alive rams rarer. This will also hopefully incentivize players to play a more diverse field of civilizations.

Jun 15 2020, 7:47 AM

Jun 14 2020

ValihrAnt added a comment to D2648: [gameplay] make Caratacos and Maximus auras local.

Take for example Acharya, the mauryan healer hero, you will almost never see him being used for his effect (technology speed and cost), even though in theory it seems quite decent. A global effect would make more sense for him. When he is used, it's as a very bad replacement for Cunobelin.

I don't know what heroes other people train when playing Mauryans, but for me Acharya is the only one I train and definitely doesn't need a buff. Being able to get techs for cheaper and faster is huge for gaining a military advantage over the opponent. The resources saved on the blacksmith upgrades allow to pick up Will to Fight much more easily and then he still has great use on the frontline.

I can include this patch for D1400, however before doing so we could agree on the changes here.

I think Caratacos is fine at 60m. Maximus having a larger aura would be beneficial.
The main thing that doesn't make much sense are heroes that give +20% extra attack to all units vs the ones that give +20% attack to only champions. Being more specialized means the bonus should be better too right?

Jun 14 2020, 11:34 AM
ValihrAnt added a comment to D2816: [gameplay] tweak champions costs.
IIRC, @ValihrAnt disliked the idea of keeping a high metal cost due to map imbalances.
Jun 14 2020, 11:06 AM · Restricted Project

Jun 13 2020

ValihrAnt accepted D2628: [gameplay] tweak champion infantry javelinist walk speed.
Jun 13 2020, 7:38 PM
ValihrAnt added a comment to D2628: [gameplay] tweak champion infantry javelinist walk speed.

Yes, slowing these guys down a bit is good. The speed they move at makes no sense currently.

Jun 13 2020, 7:38 PM

Jun 12 2020

ValihrAnt added a comment to D2801: [gameplay] enable stable for all civilizations.

As far as I remember @Feldfeld and @ValihrAnt agree that it should be cheaper.

Yes, as we move on to more production buildings for the same amount of units I believe that the cost of the production buildings should also become lower to allow for easier switches between units. Cavalry, in general, are much more dangerous and difficult to field in this game as they don't provide any economic capabilities, except for hunting. So using cavalry is much riskier than infantry.
Investing in a stable and then cavalry is a big expense and as I said risky because you must do damage to the enemy. Even more so with cavalry being separated to a stable as making your own barrack will cost an additional 300 res + time to start booming if you recognize that cavalry won't work, and if the opponent went for a barrack instead of a stable that will be a very likely economy lead for the opponent, which can snowball.
Basically, outside of early rushes with cavalry all made from the CC, I think stables at 300 cost will mean that cavalry will become mostly unused in the midgame. Even at 200 cost I think that will be the case. The reason players still did cavalry in borgs mod was that defending them generally required the enemy 2 production buildings - barrack and archery range to counter the javelin cavalry, which was high early investment to be ready for the cav in time.
On second thoughts I've no clue what's the best approach so just experiment and see what works I guess.

Jun 12 2020, 5:28 PM
ValihrAnt accepted D2798: [gameplay] Increases the number of embassy..

The limit of 2 embassies is very annoying as you only have 3 units in the barrack and you're reliant on the embassies for everything else. A limit of 2 is terrible for being able to get a decent amount of any unit out, especially if you go for Expertise in War which slows down train time.

Jun 12 2020, 1:58 PM · Restricted Project

Jun 8 2020

ValihrAnt added a comment to D2507: [gameplay] allow building palisades in neutral territory.

I can already feel all the trolling with palisades being buildable in allied territory. Good luck booming when I wall in your Civic center, barracks and resources.
Regardless, I'm unsure about this change and would really want playtesting to be done if this is moved forward with.

Jun 8 2020, 5:33 PM

Jun 6 2020

ValihrAnt added a comment to D2536: [gameplay] make embassy mercenaries native.

(I didn't check if the patch works properly and am just talking from a gameplay perspective)
This patch is quite necessary if D2534 gets committed for two reasons. First of all, it can be very annoying to capture a building only to find out that you are unable to train any units there and thus it is useless to you. Secondly, it adds some risk to the Kushite player because the only drawback to their camps getting captured is having to make new ones, the enemy will never be able to use them to their advantage.

Jun 6 2020, 5:41 PM
ValihrAnt accepted D2534: [gameplay] allow building Blemmye camp and Nuba village in neutral territory.

I have one last question/suggestion. Currently we can only build 2 camps, with this change it would be interesting to increase the number of camps that can be built, like maybe 3?
They are considered embassy, so I think this also affects the Carthaginians, they have 3 embassies but can only build two, which seems wrong too. What do you think?

Having higher capacity is something I've wanted for a long time, though I think this might be out of scope for this patch.
Another thing to note is that the camps won't switch loyalty to another player when completely surrounded by their territory even if completely ungarrisoned. Although, they are easier to capture by units than barracks due to a larger footprint (can have more units capturing at once) and a smaller garrison size.
Overall, I like the change. It adds some extra strategy options and differentiation between civs.

Jun 6 2020, 5:34 PM

Jun 4 2020

ValihrAnt added a comment to D2782: [Gameplay] make ram less effective.

@ValihrAnt Do you prefer to prevent attacks against organics altogether or simply debuff them?

I think the optimal approach would be to reduce damage against organic units. If I understand correctly siege weapons don't count as organic so the damage to other siege weapons should still remain the same, which is what I'd want.

Jun 4 2020, 2:21 PM · Restricted Project, Contributors
ValihrAnt added a comment to D2533: [gameplay] deprecate kennel, train war dogs at barracks.

Another thing to keep in mind is that this would remove the buy-in cost for war dogs and would thus be a big buff to the britons. Previously you needed to invest plenty of res into setting up the kennels to then be able to train the war dogs when pop capped. Now you can simply train war dogs when pop capped from the barrack/house, so not only would there be no buy in cost players will be able to spam them out quicker from more buildings.

Jun 4 2020, 8:43 AM

Jun 3 2020

ValihrAnt added a comment to D2782: [Gameplay] make ram less effective.

The patch changes ram speed from 8.1 to 7.2, so from the same speed as an unpacked bolt shooter to the same speed as an unpacked catapult, making it easier for infantry and elephants to catch up to them.
Overall, I'm not sure if rams seem OP due to the ranged unit focused meta and some civs simply not getting good counter units to siege weapons or if they're actually OP. Still, I'm for this change as rams can be buffed again when some other meta changing balancing is done.

Jun 3 2020, 9:16 AM · Restricted Project, Contributors

Jun 1 2020

ValihrAnt added a comment to D2575: [gameplay] tweak war elephant costs.

@ValihrAnt @borg- would this be okay if I only committed the cost change? Or is there a good reasoning behind the team bonus change?

I think it can be included without the team bonus. The patch originally lowered war elephant overall cost and the team bonus change was there to make sure they don't become too cheap, but then I changed the values to reduce the metal cost and increase food cost while still leaving overall cost the same as it was originally. So the team bonus change isn't as important anymore.

Jun 1 2020, 12:17 PM

May 31 2020

ValihrAnt accepted D2669: [gameplay] new Gaul team bonus.

Still agree with this and 15% over 20% discount is a safer approach.

May 31 2020, 3:00 PM

May 30 2020

ValihrAnt added a comment to D2741: [gameplay] allow rome to build palisades.

Doesn't that make the factions more generic, and thus less interesting?

I don't think giving the Romans palisades will make them less interesting as they already have 2 unique things fortification wise: the Siege Walls and the Entrenched army camp, both of which can be built-in neutral and enemy territory.

May 30 2020, 8:54 PM
ValihrAnt accepted D2741: [gameplay] allow rome to build palisades.

I had always assumed Rome lacks palisade walls because of having the Siege walls, which does lead to some awkward situations. First of all, players are entirely incapable of building walls in Phase 1. Later on, it can still be very hard to wall as stone walls are very expensive and stone can be hard to obtain. Additionally giving Rome palisades won't take anything away from the Siege walls as one of the two can only be built in home territory and the other in neutral or opposing territory.

May 30 2020, 5:48 PM

May 27 2020

ValihrAnt added a comment to D2767: Stop dodging arrows by spamclicking or patrol: Lower speed at short distances.

Do you have a replay, showing you can actually move your attention away from the dancing unit, without it getting hit?

May 27 2020, 6:52 PM
ValihrAnt added a comment to D2767: Stop dodging arrows by spamclicking or patrol: Lower speed at short distances.

This solves dancing with patrol, but I can still easily dance other than that. It takes a quick second to adapt to having to click further apart or click in the minimap but other than that I can go for a long time until the unit finally gets hit.
It also will be very annoying when trying to micro and probably in other scenarios, I can't foresee right away. First thing is when I'm raiding with cavalry. I want to be quick and not have my cavalry suddenly slow down because I didn't click far enough in front of them. When I find an exposed group of units whilst raiding I want to position my cavalry in the retreat route to make them go a longer distance and also right by my units, this patch makes it very hard to do so as I generally will be clicking my units forward small distances. With the patch, I will have to click further away, hope the pathfinder doesn't do something dumb, and then use the "Stop" hotkey.
So currently to me, it feels like a solution that won't solve the problem entirely and will also harm other aspects of the game.

May 27 2020, 6:19 PM

May 7 2020

ValihrAnt updated the diff for D2720: update information in {civ}.json files.

Addressed mistakes Nescio found. Also added Gaul "Tavern", Roman "Temple of Vespa" and Athenian, Spartan "Stoa" to Special Buildings

May 7 2020, 8:08 PM

May 6 2020

ValihrAnt updated the diff for D2720: update information in {civ}.json files.

Remove "Cleruchy", "Military Reforms" and "Traditional army vs Reform Army" from Seleucid history tab.

May 6 2020, 9:16 PM
ValihrAnt added a comment to D2720: update information in {civ}.json files.

There are some more things I'm unsure of:

  1. The Romans receive another unique formation on top of Testudo and that is anti_cavalry. I'm unsure if there is any better way to call it or to just leave it as "Anti-Cavalry Formation"
  2. Both of the Seleucid bonuses feel weird. "Cleruchy" is worded as if it is a tech and I want to know whether to reword it and also copy it over to the Ptolemies (the only other civilization to get the Military Colony) or to remove it. And for "Military Reforms", while it is a bonus to be able to choose 2 of 4 champions instead of just being given two, it also involves two technologies, and those are mentioned in the "Special Technologies" tab, so one of the two seems like a redundant entry to me.
May 6 2020, 3:51 PM
ValihrAnt updated the diff for D2720: update information in {civ}.json files.

Addressed Nescio's critiques. Removed the Syntagma formation from being mentioned for the Macedonians as a bonus, because it is shared by every civilization with pikemen.

May 6 2020, 3:32 PM

May 5 2020

ValihrAnt added a comment to D2720: update information in {civ}.json files.

Well, it's available to three civs: kush, maur, pers; if it's listed in one civ file, then it should also be included in the other two.
For that same reason I believe it's incorrect to list the phalanx formation as a civ bonus in the spart file, since it's available to about half of all civs, not just spart.

Upon checking in-game only 4 civilizations have access to the phalanx formation: Athenians, Carthaginians, Seleucids and Spartans. Just under a third. So depends on where we draw the line of something not being unique enough, I guess. In my opinion, it's enough to be left in.

My point is that all entries in all civ files should be critically checked and corrected or removed. Patches ought to be both correct and complete, so this one could become quite large. Therefore it might be better to work horizontally, and do civ bonuses, structures, and technologies in three separate patches, to keep them smaller and more similar. I've no strong opinion either way; the choice is yours.

I'd prefer to do this one separately.

May 5 2020, 9:26 PM

May 4 2020

ValihrAnt added a comment to D2720: update information in {civ}.json files.

For special technologies, please follow the strings from the technology files; many of those need to be updated as well, to follow the standardized tooltip format already used by auras and some technologies, but that is outside the scope of this patch; the entries in the {civ}.json files should match the technologies.

May 4 2020, 9:52 PM
ValihrAnt updated the diff for D2720: update information in {civ}.json files.

Remove unimplemented features instead of marking them. Correct two more strings: Mauryan "Archery Tradition" and Macedonian "Royal Gift".

May 4 2020, 1:10 PM

May 3 2020

ValihrAnt changed the visibility for D2720: update information in {civ}.json files.
May 3 2020, 1:45 PM
ValihrAnt updated the diff for D2720: update information in {civ}.json files.
May 3 2020, 1:36 PM
ValihrAnt updated the summary of D2720: update information in {civ}.json files.
May 3 2020, 1:15 PM
ValihrAnt created D2720: update information in {civ}.json files.
May 3 2020, 12:07 PM

Apr 16 2020

ValihrAnt added a comment to D2674: [gameplay] make foundations not ConquestCritical.

What are all foundations buildings please?

A foundation is a building before being fully built. For example, I'm losing in a 1v1 but decide to be annoying. What I can do is place a Civic Center in a random spot and I won't count as defeated despite losing all my units until the enemy finds the 1hp foundation and destroys it.

Apr 16 2020, 1:34 PM

Apr 15 2020

ValihrAnt added a comment to D2684: [gameplay] make rams less effective vs organic units.

A frequent complaint on the forums is that rams are simply too powerful and can crush basically anything when massed. This patch reduces their attack damage by a factor 5, making them significantly less effective vs units, and gives them a 5× bonus attack vs structures, keeping them effectively unchanged vs those.

The reason for those complaints is that it is unclear what units counter rams and even then some civs don't get those units at all, like the Macedonians for whom it is the main reason they are nearly unplayed. But still I think it's best that siege rams aren't efficient at killing units too.

Not sure of this change. All the other siege units also do a similar damage to regular units and the cost is the same and this change would mean a great disadvantage compared to other siege units.

I don't believe it will hurt siege rams. They aren't intended to fight against units and I don't think they should be used like that. I don't even remember the last time someone fought my units with his rams, I just remember that it was annoying and felt super cheesy. Rams will still be the best siege unit for a fast push.

Also in this case the bonus should also apply against other siege units.

Agree with that.

Apr 15 2020, 8:56 AM

Apr 14 2020

ValihrAnt added a comment to D2547: [gameplay] allow training barracks champions at any barracks.

Just to be clear: this patch does not give all civs barracks champions; that's something for a different patch, if desired.
What this patch does, is allow the civs that already have barracks champions (and the corresponding unlock technology) to train them at any barracks, regardless who built it.
Without this patch e.g. Rome can train their champions at captured Macedonian barracks, but not at captured Athenian barracks.

Apr 14 2020, 9:10 PM

Apr 12 2020

ValihrAnt added a comment to D2698: Do not chase units in FOW/SOD..

Open question: should we try to pick up our previous target when it comes into sight again?

I'm unsure how exactly that would work. Obviously, if the unit has received a new order it shouldn't care about the previous target anymore, but if it loses the target and then becomes idle the unit will attack the first enemy it sees anyways, in which case I don't think it would be best to switch targets after already starting to fight with a different unit.

Apr 12 2020, 5:03 PM

Apr 10 2020

ValihrAnt updated subscribers of D1365: [gameplay] Lower the repeat rate of spear cavalry.

The overly slow spear cavalry attack speed is something I dislike. The increased attack speed feels very good and makes spear cavalry more enjoyable to use. I also did some quick unit tests. 3 rounds of 10 spear cav vs 10 jav cav and then 20 vs 20 with the changes and without. In vanilla 10 vs 10
I had spear cavalry winning by 3 alive, 1 alive and then losing to 1. In 20 vs 20, the survivors were 4 spear cav, 3 spear cav and 4 javelin cav. With the changes in the 10vs10, I had spear cavalry surviving with 4, 1 and 3. In the 20vs20 I had spear cav survive with 4, 4 and 6 units.
Obviously a big part of the results is rng due to unit promotions, but overall, in my opinion, this is a good change. Though, it would also be best to get the opinions of other people such as @Feldfeld.

Apr 10 2020, 8:55 AM

Apr 9 2020

ValihrAnt accepted D2547: [gameplay] allow training barracks champions at any barracks.

I think for now it's a good change. This was one of the many things I struggled with when trying to balance champions in my mod. The civilizations which can only train champions at fortresses simply can't keep up. In the future when work is done to differentiate the civilizations and make them more unique, then a different approach can be taken.

Apr 9 2020, 7:23 PM
ValihrAnt accepted D2611: [gameplay] make wall segment cost proportional.

Consistency is a good thing and this patch adds more consistency. There aren't any big cost changes or anything that could severely affect balance.

Apr 9 2020, 6:52 PM

Mar 29 2020

ValihrAnt abandoned D2605: [gameplay] Fix loot oversights.
Mar 29 2020, 12:06 PM

Mar 26 2020

ValihrAnt accepted D2675: structure selection groups.

This is a great improvement. When I'm trying to select all my barracks or Civic Centers I don't care from whom I captured something, I care about getting those buildings in the same selection.

Mar 26 2020, 8:19 PM
ValihrAnt added a comment to D2669: [gameplay] new Gaul team bonus.

Does this require further testing?

It's always best to playtest changes. In general 4v4s are the most played and so 3 players would be getting the bonus. If none of the players decide to be more creative and go for the usual ranged infantry upgrades then the resources saved would be 1800W, 600F, 300S, 630M and 72 seconds. As blacksmith techs are generally researched after reaching Phase 3 then the teambonus doesn't come into play for a while. I suppose if we want to stay more on the side of safety then 15% would be better.

Mar 26 2020, 7:19 AM

Mar 25 2020

ValihrAnt added a comment to D2669: [gameplay] new Gaul team bonus.

Looking at it from a balancing POV the value of 20% seems to be pretty good. The average blacksmith researches include infantry armor and ranged infantry attack and this teambonus would save 600W, 200F, 100S, 210M and 24 seconds. So overall I think it would be a very useful teambonus, but also not overwhelming.

Mar 25 2020, 9:11 PM
ValihrAnt accepted D2622: [gameplay] make chariot Amanirenas the default.

Don't have any problems with this.

Mar 25 2020, 12:47 PM

Mar 22 2020

ValihrAnt accepted D2659: [gameplay] standardize structure loot.

This is a huge improvement over the current inconsistent and quite random structure loot stats.

Mar 22 2020, 2:35 PM

Mar 21 2020

ValihrAnt added a comment to D2580: display centre before house.

_ CC, Storehouse, Farmhouse, House, Farm, Barrack, Minitower, Vision Tower, Mini CC (if any), Market, Tower, Temple - Armery (i don't know how to order them),..... Stable, Darsena (i try to order them by priority and useness.)

Mar 21 2020, 2:39 PM

Feb 7 2020

ValihrAnt added a comment to D1863: [gameplay] reduce Blemmye and Nuba camp building time.

Didn't even realise they take took longer than barracks to build, doesn't make much sense to me. It makes sense for a camp to be built faster than a pretty big stone building. Won't change how often they're used but it will make more logical sense.

Feb 7 2020, 2:55 PM

Feb 2 2020

ValihrAnt added a comment to D2612: [gameplay] Balance ranged infantry citizen soldiers.

although building an average of numbers can also mean that units become more alike, but one of the original visions was also that unit types are differentiated / unique roles
Spread nerf might be in line with the preservative nerf, but is it in line with the role of the unit too? Is it ballistically accurate?

I didn't even think of the fact that it does make units more similar. Slings are weapons that are much harder and also take longer to become proficient with than bows. Even then an archer will be able to hit the target more consistently. So it would make sense for slingers to be more inaccurate than archers, though the patch doesn't really do that. The current change only means that they will miss a few more shots if fighting at maximum range.

Again doesnt state whether that were 2 1v1s or 8 4v4s.

I should've mentioned that right away. From checking the replays of the newest version I have 4 4v4s, 1 3v3 and 16 1v1s.

Feb 2 2020, 8:11 PM
ValihrAnt created D2612: [gameplay] Balance ranged infantry citizen soldiers.
Feb 2 2020, 3:35 PM

Feb 1 2020

ValihrAnt added a comment to D2605: [gameplay] Fix loot oversights.

Remove this here and set the loot in the individual structures/palisade* templates instead, because those have different costs and health.

From what I understand you want me to set different loot for gates, wall lengths and the wall turrets? In that case it's something, which should also be done for stone walls too as those share the same loot across all types just like palisades.

Maybe do units in a different patch? Also, it seems that this loot was intentional (10% of cost + 10 of each resource); it was introduced in rP12057 eight years ago, though the commit message doesn't mention the loot change.

So the loot of it makes a bit more sense. I don't have a problem with keeping the old loot value as the impact is very minuscule. For units, I don't currently have any others to adjust other than this one.

Feb 1 2020, 8:10 PM
ValihrAnt added a comment to D2605: [gameplay] Fix loot oversights.

This patch is obviously an improvement, however, I wouldn't be surprised if there are more structures with inappropiate loot.

The two others I have found now which don't make much sense that I know of now are temples (10W, 50S, 50M) and palisades as mentioned by Angen, which always give more wood back in loot than they cost to make.

Wouldn't it be better to decide upon a number (e.g. 20% of costs) and then standardize loot for all structure templates?

I guess it would be best if building loot was standardized like for citizen soldiers, if there is enough agreement to do so.

If all other buildings give proportional loot, then it would be consistent if these do too. Again not a big problem.

Still not bad to adjust. Changed it to be 40M as the other two values were also 20% of that respective materials cost.

Would you take a look to loot for palisades ? at some cases loot is bigger than cost.

At their current 10W per part of the wall loot, palisades quite frequently gave more than 2x in loot than they cost to make. Changed it to 3W.

Feb 1 2020, 4:14 PM
ValihrAnt updated the diff for D2605: [gameplay] Fix loot oversights.

Change loot of more things.

Feb 1 2020, 4:07 PM

Jan 30 2020

ValihrAnt created D2605: [gameplay] Fix loot oversights.
Jan 30 2020, 6:36 PM

Jan 29 2020

ValihrAnt added a comment to D2587: [gameplay] Loom buff.

Forgetting means that they knew about the tech at one time.
I guess its more than most players learn from other players which technologies are important and thus never learnt about this, or never considered it.
Thats relevant because then the solution to the problem would be making the tech more obvious, or considering the problem rather a user mistake, since all technologies are already advertized in the structure tree, ready for the dedicated players to perceive, learn and judge.
Also increasing the numbers wouldn't make the information more available except for the word of mouth in the lobby.
But youre right that the missing use of the tech might be taken as an indication that its not useful currently.
Either that is the reason, or that people never consider it. Or because the one time in the match where the tech would be most useful is passed quickly and then its not useful anymore (because the game is already won, or because one changed to corral economy, or because one has so much >food in the bank already.)

Yes, the tech isn't hidden in a dark corner. A house is probably the most used building and I'm sure that nearly all players will have looked at the 3 techs available in it, but while the other two are useful situationally, Loom ends up being very underwhelming. In the very early raids consisting of few units, Loom doesn't come into play due to the upfront cost delaying the beginning of researching and the research time itself, which I think is good. I don't want people to just get loom right away no matter what. In the later rush consisting of more units, it also plays little to no part because an extra hit often doesn't mean much. Going from 2 to 3 hits for javelin cavalry and from 3 to 4 for spear cavalry. However, with the frequent overkill due to many attackers targeting the same enemy unit, the tech can be unnoticeable again. In late game food raids, it ends up being quite useless again. Quite often Loom won't even increase the number of hits it takes a unit to get a kill. So, while investing in Loom as the game goes on is certainly not bad it generally doesn't come up on the mind due to the little effect. Certainly, I don't think of it. There's a reason both borg and feld buffed it in their mods.

My question is how do we determine the best values so that some players will choose to research the technology and others not (or only in some situations).
How do I/we know 200 is better than 250, how do we know that 200% is not too much, not too little?

For the best values, it's basically impossible to know definitively. I know that going much over a 2.0 time hp increase is a bad idea from test games done in borgs mod where I was able to successfully spam women from houses as a cheap and quick meatshield.

That the change was tested in the balance mod doesnt imply that the test was conclusive (perhaps people didnt consider it either there).
For instance were there rushes in the matches? Were those 1v1 games where attacking early economy might happen more often? Were it players who did rushes?

I did inform players about the technology changes at the start of the games when the mod was newer, later on stopped doing that. Even then I saw people researching it in the most recent matches. I have also played multiple aggressive 1v1s against feld and Loom was researched in each of those games, either as a response to scouting the other one massing up cavalry or when it felt like the enemy will be capable of doing good food harass.

Out of curiosity, why does the technology cost food? Wouldn't wood or metal make more sense? Cf. armour technologies.

Wood can still make sense, metal not so much in my opinion. The thing about food and wood is that they're the two most important resources for early development. Metal isn't needed to develop economy and so a player could easily research it right after building their first house. If Loom were to be researched in the Civic center and thus stop production of units from it for a set amount of time then metal would be fine as a player would sacrifice economic growth for it.

I'm not against this tweak, though I doubt it'll make a difference; people will probably continue to ignore it.

I'm certain there will still be people who will still ignore it, but hopefully more people will use it. Loom did seem like a more worthwhile investment in my experience.

Jan 29 2020, 7:19 PM

Jan 25 2020

ValihrAnt added a comment to D2493: [gameplay] make siege engines uncapturable.

I'd be very happy if attacking siege engines was the default, but in my opinion, capturing ranged siege engines isn't too bad. It already happens very rarely as players tend to have those things near their army, so capturing them only really happens if a player somehow forgets the siege weapon in some area or the siege engine wasn't brought back in time after an enemy gains a big army lead. Even in such cases, players have plenty of time to delete the siege engine as capturing takes a while.

Jan 25 2020, 8:09 PM

Jan 24 2020

ValihrAnt added a comment to D2596: [gameplay] unify Cavalry walk speeds.

I like having champs having the same move speed as their citizen counterparts. As mentioned it is much more realistic and has the additional benefits of making them feel fairer to play against and also easier to balance.

Jan 24 2020, 7:31 PM

Jan 21 2020

ValihrAnt added a comment to D2585: [gameplay] Cavalry archer speed adjustment.

Then why not lower heavy skirmisher speed?

Fewer to test, basically. An additional benefit of the change being more minor, which is something I aimed to do when balancing. Avoid making big sweeping changes and if a change turns out to be too minuscule it can be further adjusted in the future.

Or raise cavalry javelinist speed?

Obviously, this would make javelin cavalry stronger, which I think is very unneeded as they're in a good spot balance wise currently.

By the way, this makes elephant archers slower, since they have the horse archer as their parent. Also, keep in mind there are two cavalry speed technologies (+10% each), from which elephantry and infantry don't benefit.

Didn't actually realize that was the case, will fix it in the patch soon. Getting the first speed upgrade will actually restore cav archer speed back to slightly higher than initially.

Jan 21 2020, 9:05 PM

Jan 20 2020

ValihrAnt added a comment to D2585: [gameplay] Cavalry archer speed adjustment.

Out of curiosity, why exactly 0.92, not 0.95, 0.90, or 0.85?

Initially, I did 0.90 but then they were slower than Heavy Skirmishers, which didn't feel too correct. When I tried 0.95 (in a single-player test environment) I didn't feel like the change was significant enough. So 0.92 was a nice middle ground.

(I guess it takes a bit of time, but it wouldn't hurt to document the test sample (i.e. approximate number of matches, list of participating players who may be considered either capable of judging or capable of playing representatively for competitive players. If its easier, one could also just upload replays and perhaps a link to the mod. The purpose of the list of test participant would allow (1) the reviewers to determine in how far the patch was tested and (2) later consumers of the patches (a24 players and devs) to find identify which players were capable of judging, or what might have gone wrong or right in case it was a fail or success.)

Changing just speed is my idea. Christmas wanted the changes to include a reduction to speed and range, but an increase to dmg. badosu suggested having a small (0.3 to 0.5) damage increase to make up for the reduced speed. Then lastly I have Boudica and Stockfish agreeing with how they are nerfed.
Test match wise I have participated in 8 matches were cavalry archers were used. Though, the matches were spread across the mod versions, which I only have the last one on hand. 2 of the matches had cavalry archers as the main army, in the others they were used for rushing.

Could this make skirmisher cavalry rushes too strong?

I don't see how this makes skirmisher cavalry rushes any stronger. Previously skirm cav struggled to get even 1 hit off on camels running away, now they should be able to fire off at least one shot. Still, when the camels are back at home they will simply be laying suppressive fire from the safety of the CC due to their vastly superior range.

Jan 20 2020, 9:28 PM
ValihrAnt created D2587: [gameplay] Loom buff.
Jan 20 2020, 6:32 PM
ValihrAnt created D2585: [gameplay] Cavalry archer speed adjustment.
Jan 20 2020, 4:10 PM
ValihrAnt updated the diff for D2575: [gameplay] tweak war elephant costs.

Changed war elephant cost to 300F and 200M. So their total cost is the same as in A23, but they are more accessible due to having a lower metal cost. Also adjusted their loot.

Jan 20 2020, 3:34 PM

Jan 19 2020

ValihrAnt added a comment to D2575: [gameplay] tweak war elephant costs.

True, there are no Elephant-specific technologies, though e.g. archery tradition does apply to elephant archers.

True, I forgot about it.

Something that could be tried is introducing two technologies, the first upgrades elephant archers from basic (one archer) to advanced (two archers), the second to elite (three archers). I'm not sure it's a good idea, though. And probably beyond the scope of this patch.

It is beyond the scope of this patch, but it's an idea I've thought about. Upon each promotion the elephant has another archer firing off of its back, but even though there are 2 or 3 units firing in the animation only 1 arrow gets shot, so what could also be done is to have the upgrades give them an extra projectile, kind of like the Chukonu in AoE2.
But, overall the patch makes elephant archers more useful in the early game and them falling off as upgrades start kicking in is something that can be addressed in a future patch.

Jan 19 2020, 5:09 PM

Jan 18 2020

ValihrAnt added a comment to D2575: [gameplay] tweak war elephant costs.

Infantry archers cost 50 food + 50 wood and have 50 health.
Camel archers cost 100 food + 50 wood and have 100 health.
One would expect the elephant archer to cost 200 food + 50 wood (it has 200 health).

200 health is not really a lot, though: worker elephants have 300, champion elephants 750, champion cavalry spearmen 300, and citizen cavalry spearmen 160. So maybe the elephant archer deserves a significant health increase?

Jan 18 2020, 4:12 PM
ValihrAnt added a comment to D2532: [gameplay] train champion cavalry at stable.

I support this change. Also, I remember there being a Persian cavalry archer champion in the files somewhere. Wouldn't be bad to include that guy in the stable as well if possible.

Jan 18 2020, 3:53 PM