-
Who's Online 6 Members, 1 Anonymous, 197 Guests (See full list)
-
Topics
-
Posts
-
That's often what is brought up but it might be overstated, as you can already have very low clicks per minutes assigned to managing production if you use vanilla autoqueue. From 0 to 5 apm? 5 being if it reset every 10 sec.
-
By guerringuerrin · Posted
Sure, I understand you. I also don’t think that arguing “learn to play” contributes much. For me, the key point of the discussion is how to reach a consensus—how to bring both “playstyles” closer together without pushing everything to extremes. And I’d like to elaborate a bit on this so you understand what I mean. There’s a big difference between allowing the queue to resume once resources are available and a mod that assigns batches of units sized exactly to fit each building automatically and at instant speed. Moreover, the mod in question (ModernGUI) doesn’t simply leave a preassigned production queue; as a player, you can choose the composition of your army—for example: 40% javelineers, 40% pikemen, and 20% cavalry—and the mod will produce units in batches, assigning them to the queue just 1–2 seconds before the currently produced unit finishes. This also optimizes resource usage, since you keep them available until that exact moment. Then, if you run out of resources because you used them elsewhere, as soon as you have resources again, the mod automatically resumes production. Of course, there are caveats—you can’t say it’s perfect. Additionally, the mod includes some very interesting GUI improvements that, in my opinion, would be very positive to incorporate into vanilla. In other words, for me this isn’t a black-and-white issue. It’s true that the vanilla 0 A.D. system has some fairly clear functional bugs, and there is ongoing work to improve them. If you haven’t tried the mod already, I invite you to try it yourself so you can compare it with what I’m saying. Sure—against the AI, use whatever mod you like. Personally, I find it frustrating to lose a match to someone and then realize they were using this mod. There’s also been a lot of discussion about transparency—whether people should disclose when they’re using it. And in my experience, until you watch a replay and notice it yourself, players usually don’t tell you. It’s true that many people aren’t deliberately hiding it. In my experience, most players who use the mod don’t feel like they’re cheating; they just enjoy the game more that way. Some at least acknowledge that it helps them play better; others argue they would play just as well and that they simply find it boring otherwise—something I personally find very hard to believe, since the advantages of this training system seem quite obvious to me. That said, it’s natural that someone who doesn’t use that mod and plays against someone who does might feel it’s unfair. It’s humanly impossible for a player not using the mod to perform all the tasks that someone using it can, especially in battle scenarios where, while one player has to manage unit production, the other can keep clicking in combat while the barracks are practically producing on their own—as long as you have houses and resources, it will keep going. In other words, one player can focus on microing units in battle, while the other also has to deal with barracks micromanagement. And you might say these are just different schools of play, different preferences. Fair enough—but in multiplayer, when you’re facing another human who has these advantages, it’s natural that someone might feel frustrated or that it isn’t fair. This thread mixes many different issues. That’s why I asked whether you really knew what kind of automation was being discussed, and to what extent that automation goes. It’s not a minor debate. And even if the multiplayer community is a minority, let me say that it’s a very active one, and many people who actively contribute to the game’s development are part of it. Moreover, I think the multiplayer aspect should not be minimized at all—considering that this is an RTS, it’s only natural that it carries a certain weight. Sorry for the length of my response. I’m terrible at summarizing my ideas. At the same time, it felt more practical to just dump this whole rant at once rather than go little by little, haha. -
Well, this started with "I think stopping the birth of new units due to lack of resources is a big mistake", and "unit production queue should be restored automatically when resources become available", and "This is incorrect. This can be considered a bug" (I just copy-pasted that last one because it's funny :D). Then I said "I get annoyed when I have to set it up again because I run out of resources for a few seconds, so I get where the proposal comes from". I guess I'm aware of what's being discussed, unless I missed something in between all the mayhem. I totally agree with "the sense of fair play matters", in fact I take it to such an extreme that that's why focusing on thinking and not clickiness seems fairer to me. The first criteria is fair only between players that have memorised not only at which time what building orders must be executed, but also have a click rate only achievable by playing often, while the second criteria puts a broader audience at a similar level, by allowing more creativity and less mechanicality. This is not a problem just with this game, this is a known problem for many games, even chess has this problem, and that’s why variants like Chess960 have been created. That doesn’t mean that variant is not competitive, and having people answering “learn the game mechanics” to people that question the status quo is misleading. I completely understand that for many here the second criteria might not look as fun or challenging, although I think this is a preconception rooted on habit, but I would instead ask myself which criteria would make the game grow more (if that's even intended).
-
By Grautvornix · Posted
Well unless this is linked to the individual experience of each citizen soldier: advances in fighting capability/ranking up would then coupled to an individual gathering capability decrease. Newly trained uniots would have full capability (for a CS) decreasing with each fight. In the end you woudl have an army of fighter pros that are not good for any gathering anymore while the newbies can very well help in the economy but are less powerful in battle. Sound interesting to me.
-
