- User Since
- Sep 21 2019, 3:08 PM (18 w, 3 d)
Sat, Jan 25
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.
Fri, Jan 24
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.
Tue, Jan 21
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.
Mon, Jan 20
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.
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.
Sun, Jan 19
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.
Sat, Jan 18
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?
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.
Town phase from five village structures to one corral, farmstead, house, and storehouse.
I dislike forcing players to make a corral to click up to Phase 2 just for the sake of differentiation. It feels a bit too artificial. Corrals currently are a very rarely used building due to taking much longer to set up and also requiring constant attention, but if a player does plan to use corrals as the main source of food income they will start setting them up early due to how long it takes to get them going. So it doesn't feel like anything gets differentiated for the start, just a mild annoyance is added, due to a building that isn't made in 99% of multiplayer matches being required to click up.
City phase from four town structures to one blacksmith, market, and temple.
As a consequence building towers or military structures no longer brings you closer to the next, which means there is now a greater differentiation between early strategies (e.g. neglecting defences and military to rush to city phase, or train more units instead).
Again, maybe I'm missing something, but I don't feel like it adds any differentiation, just hinders it. In a 1v1 if I'm going aggressive and my opponent uses towers for defense and then clicks up to City phase with just those towers, I know that I can severely hurt my enemy by just idling any single one of his resources since he won't be able to buy it to, for example, continue unit production, build a fort or get economy upgrades.
I feel like forcing players to have 3 specific buildings to click up will only mean that there will be much less differentiation between the buildings and the situations the players arrive to City phase in due to lacking those buildings.
Thu, Jan 16
Given that only a minority of civs can train elephants, I'm still not convinced the kush civ bonus is appropiate.
I don't know Kushite history well enough to be able to think of an appropriate teambonus. Though, it is sort of similar to the Athenian teambonus, 1 only works on a specific map type and the other works only for a specific set of civilizations.
Champion elephants are quite powerful. Why not lower the metal cost but raise the food cost, keeping the total unchanged? E.g. 300 food + 200 metal. Metal can be scarce but food shouldn't be a problem in late game. Also change loot below.
I talked to some players in the lobby and they were down to test such changes out too, I'll update the mod to include that soon. Also the War elephant loot is the exact same as all other champion units (10F, 10W, 20M). I suppose it wouldn't be too bad to remove wood loot and increase food loot?
Actually fix the changes.
Oct 28 2019
That's basically the "test that it works" plan which basically should be implied by performing a review.
I'll try to improve on that in the future.
A typical oversight is to forget some files that should receive the analogous change.
Yeah, I did do that, but I went back and fixed all I could find, which is only the History tab.
But what the summary / test plan misses to explain is the reason as to why this nerf should be performed, why this is team bonus is too strong.
I added that to original.
Finally if possible it would be good to have a peer review, as in some competitive player judging whether 10% is the best number - (did borg- have an opinion on this, what changes did he perform in his mod?)
borg- said he agrees with rome and iber, but says that kushites are underpowered and that this would nerf them further, i.e. that it would be better to keep the kushites bonus as long as they lack other bonuses.
I have talked to Feld and he agreed with the changes. In the case of borg- I was trying to contact him , but didn't get a response yet, though in his own balance mod he changed Kush bonus to 10% as well. I think it's just that he didn't didn't know the full context of the change, which is reducing elephant base cost just like he also had done in his mod. But I have no trouble changing this if he disagrees. Bonus wise Kush have more bonuses than most other civs, they're just all very weak, but that's a different matter.
Actually fixed it. :)
Apparently I need to combine them, sorry for spam.