- User Since
- Feb 2 2020, 6:02 PM (146 w, 6 d)
Sep 20 2020
Given we won't have the building time bonus as per https://code.wildfiregames.com/D2841, what is the justification for removing from britons?
Anything that increases the role of melee is a plus for me. My comments:
Aug 24 2020
The "two guys and a ram" does not exist (yet), and would require new art (actors, animations, icons) to be created, therefore it's not an option right now. This patch uses existing art and is therefore an option for right now.
The question to be asked is whether or not it is an improvement over the status quo.
From a gameplay perspective it makes sense that all civilizations should have a ram equivalent. In this sense this patch is an improvement.
Aug 19 2020
This looks great! Is it possible to also show when a player is having issues with turn calculation? This is important for late game when some players computer can't handle the processing, it would show who's having trouble which would otherwise be hidden.
Aug 15 2020
I don't understand why this is an absolute number instead of a fraction of the max pop cap, e.g. 25% (for 200 pop baseline) or 16.6% (for 300 pop baseline)
Aug 11 2020
So maybe a population bonus with the CC could be justified but that's quite a huge bonus at the start.
I'm not sure there are any balancing considerations at this point since stone walls are severely under used at the moment. Looks like a good improvement though.
Aug 8 2020
I also very much appreciate the 15%->25% changes, makes the early game decision whether to boom or rush much more relevant.
I think this is a step in a good direction, as far as I like the ability to capture siege, making the behavior consistent is more important.
Aug 7 2020
Apart from health/loyalty regeneration I don't think outposts are too much broken.
Thanks, I appreciate
Aug 5 2020
I agree with previous comments about not actually solving the issue, however given melee units are just meat shield for most part and will be for the foreseeable future a player relying mostly on ranged units can snowball out of control after a few good engagements, this patch helps with that a bit.
Just remember to bring back this tech if we ever reduce the heroes health as seems to be probably happening.
Are there any blockers for this patch? cc @Stan Is there any reviewer I should tag here?
Aug 2 2020
Thanks for this patch, this is a really annoying issue indeed!
Jul 24 2020
Did you test how well it performs attacking some women guarded by 2 skirms, 2 spearmen? I think this would be a good metric on how we mitigated the early harass.
Jul 15 2020
Just for reference, I'm not opposed to the idea of allowing palisades on neutral territory.
I actually like the idea, I just think health decay makes more sense from a gameplay and realism perspective, a wall that is gaia'd still performs the intended purpose in most cases, e.g. as a shield for aggressive catapults.
Yes, but the armour of rams (and siege towers) is not changed, only that of artillery, per your earlier remarks:
Jul 14 2020
I'd guess it improves balance, since it brings the footprint size of citizen cavalry closer to that of their champion counterparts, and yes, cavalry still has a footprint about three times as large as infantry, so qualitatively the status quo is maintained. Please try it yourself.
I can't opine on this, never used Macedonians much. Given there are no planned buffs for them as far as I can see, and they still look like an underpowered civilization, I have no objections.
Athenas can build walls in neutral territory. It doesn't look so bad.
(Rams already are uncapturable, this patch does not change anything for those.)
It seems to me we're hitting a different issue here, which is that garrisoning is too powerful, but that's a different topic.
It seems there is a consensus that this can be tried, at least, so I'll commit it soon-ish.
now that all civilisations get some kind of counter
Making gameplay balance considerations suddenly a requirement assigns undue importance to the current values, which are rather arbitrary.
Jul 12 2020
Just a nitpick, athenian marines are never used as anti-siege, sword cavalry is used often instead. Also, not all maps have water, most played don't.
Jul 10 2020
Introduced a mace champion swordsman, using the black cloak actor, trainable at fortress and (with technology) barracks. This gives mace a much needed counter vs rams (athen has marines and spart skiritai).
Jul 3 2020
I'm not too sure about this change, seems too specific to be actually useful. Sparta already has issues with its population limit and special techs like this alleviated the problem a bit, even though not often used.
I like it costing only metal, makes a lot more sense. I'm not too sure about the total cost, it might get tricky (especially as ptolemy) to play without extra mines. That said, it's overcompensated by spam and military colonies for map control, so I think this is a positive change overall.
Jul 2 2020
Different players have different play styles. Not everyone is interested in competitive multiplayer. Many people are perfectly happy with single-player vs the Petra AI.
The point is that these phase stat increases strongly favour a particular play style, punishing players wanting to explore different strategies.
Actually the technology requires the town phase (as is the case for the rotary mill).
I think this will increase imbalance between heroes instead of putting them on the same level, unless other factors are considered in the same patch like bonuses, combat prowess, etc...
Jun 19 2020
Looks good to me!
I agree with keeping a relevant stone cost for other civilizations, it really helps since you can use the initial resources you wouldn't be able to use otherwise.
Jun 18 2020
Jun 17 2020
Or a local aura that gives units or structures an additional armour level, making them harder to destroy?
Or a local aura that reduces the armour of enemy units by one level, making them easier to kill?
Jun 16 2020
How about a local aura that makes structures harder to capture?
Jun 14 2020
Sounds like a good idea. I'm hesitating between 10% or 15%, other opinions welcomed.
IIRC, @ValihrAnt disliked the idea of keeping a high metal cost due to map imbalances.
Not sure if related to the scope of this change, but it would also be good to be able to bind keys that (I, currently) are not able to, for example Tab and CapsLock. What's strange is that I looked at the codebase and there are constants for handling these keys but they can't be used for hotkeys.
I agree that Caratacos (or even Maximus FWIW) bonus is not really a big of a deal.
Jun 13 2020
There's not much to say on my end before playtesting it, contact me whenever you want to do that.
> Anyway, I can undo that change, if you think that's better, or halve the metal cost as compensation.
Actually it is: we know from ancient authors it was quite common for armies to erect palisades around their camps in enemy territory.
In general, I agree with this change.
How about keeping the stone at 300, but reducing the wood cost to 200 or 150?
About the pyramid cost change, I'd like to see it reduced a bit, currently kushites are deemed the most underpowered civilization by the majority of players.
I like that it has a considerable cost, in both wood and metal, also that it may help transition from a fanatic rush to farms, since you are gathering mostly wood and metal at that stage.
I agree with this change
Jun 12 2020
Well, some animals would make sense to be hunted, e.g. bears. Most do not make sense though, and I think the experience loot is a minimal incentive that although not sufficient for the irritation on having to kill those at least works and makes more sense.
Since wood cost has been reduced for wood barracks civilizations maybe we could make it 100w 150s for the stone barracks civs? Otherwise I think we're nerfing the stone barracks civilizations, except for those that can make slingers in p1, since you won't feasibly use those resources in p1.
Jun 11 2020
I also like the spear cav atk speed increase, currently javelin cavalry can outmicro spear cav without a significant advantage in numbers (which many expect to favor the spear cavalry).
Jun 7 2020
May 9 2020
May 8 2020
For smoothly changing tree density dependent on distance to area and/or height I suggest to use a painter rather than a constraint ;)
This constraint is not deterministic since the random number is rolled in .allows.
That means if you use this to paint trees on an area and do this over and over again you will get increasing densities though that was nowhere specified by the user.
May 3 2020
Well, the question is, do we have intention to have these implemented? If yes then I'm fine with this change, otherwise we should remove all the unimplemented stuff we have in-game right now.
We could. current plan was to add a keybinding so you can click anywhere on the minimap or map to do the ping.
May 2 2020
This is great! Can we add a keybinding to ping on the center of the current camera view?
May 1 2020
So speaking about creating lots of vectors causing perf impact, those could also become the same temporary vector and use the set method to change the coordinates.
Style fixes for tests
Style fixes for tests
Style fixes for tests
Is that correct? The map has |mapSize| tiles which makes |mapSize+1| vertices on the heightgrid.
The values returned by a Placer should be locations of tiles I think and then if a Painter like the HeightPainters operate on vertices of tiles, its their responsibility to work on all four vertices of the given tile.
So actually seems correct then to go from 0 to N-1 making up for N tiles.
Apr 30 2020
One thing to notice though, is that as the game currently stands, units can perfectly estimate the position of their target, i.e. perfect "ballistics".
One thing to notice though, is that as the game currently stands, units can perfectly estimate the position of their target, i.e. perfect "ballistics". This patch introduces an option to change that behaviour from the templates.
Apr 29 2020
I like the idea of ballistics inclusion, one issue I find often is that chasing units with ranged units (e.g. skirm cav against archer cav) is very inefficient while it shouldn't in terms of gameplay.
Well I guess best way to test there are no errors is to add unit tests for those cases and fix the code :)
Remove redundant initializer
Properly handle map edge
I performed some tests on gear normal for 8 players, times are in seconds and retrieved from the map logger:
Handle floating radius properly for DiskPlacer
Ok, I performed the style fixes, I'll make some profiling and testing and we should be good to land.