Leaderboard

There is currently no issue with this in the meta. Better not to change anything. Anyway, sentry towers are already a target and a weak spot in p2, because they are quite easily conquered. Players usually rush to upgrade them as soon as they get to p2.

Perhaps we can reduce metal cost elsewhere to compensate for this. For example switching some upgrades to costing stone and wood only. Cavalry health boost - wood+food Siege attack upgrade - wood and stone

Hello everyone! I had an idea that would be easy to implement and might make traders a more interesting and less predictable economic unit to use. At a given point in the game, the resources available for barter in the market have different values. Most often metal is by far the most valuable, but this appears set to become less extreme in a25. In alpha 23 traders were not even considered in 95% of games due to the fast paced gameplay and need to be ready for fighting at all times. In a24 barter rates immediately slam to value metal, further disadvantaging people without metal mines. This seeks to bridge the gap and make market gameplay a big improvement on both. If traders got more resources for each pass when they were trading for the most valuable resource, this would (maybe) make some economic sense because traders would want to take more value on each trip and this would be found in the most scarce resource. For example's sake (the values can be changed) a trader gets 100 of each resource when barter rates are equal 100:82. This is the default setup when no one has bartered, I call it the equilibrium rates. If someone barters all their resources for metal, the value of metal goes way up and now each resource is 100:1 with metal (maximum disturbance), this means the trader will get 100% more metal than before. Ideally, each addition of disturbance past equilibrium rates has a smaller and smaller affect on the traders. This is so that the effect is both tangible on small to medium price fluctuations, and not insanely profitable for large price deviations. The relationship would be proportional to a curve like the example attached where the x axis is a measure of barter price disturbance for a scarce resource and y axis is profitability of the scarce resource in barter trade. I chose the curve as an example just to show the behavior Im looking for. Possible benefits of the mechanic: sometimes rewards for the risk of putting metal into traders around 15 minutes instead of upgrades or champions or siege grants flexibility in strategies requires some micromanagement/ at least paying attention to prices. lessens the problem of certain resources being overvalued. I remember some civ has a trade advantage, this could be a little trick that they are good at. Serves to counterbalance barter rates and allow them to reach equilibrium sooner. Makes market decisions much more complicated. Do I barter everything to get traders so I can use the good trade rates I created? No, because you wont have a short term army and someone with excess metal may use the barter rates you created to trade their metal for other resources to mount a huge short term attack against you. I think this mechanic would be super dope. I don't see any downsides to it that can not be eliminated by adjusting relationship values. I feel this will make trade economy less hands off and more interactive and skill based. I am excited to hear what you guys think!

Here are my two cents. I won't list a bunch of thing I don't like about the game, but rather mention one I do like and that I think should not be changed. I've recently started to choose Mauryans and for the first time I feel I'm playing a civ with some unique mechanics. This is something really desirable in my opinion. People can go for them when looking for a civ with high mobility and the ability to steal resources from the opponent. I'd suggest to leave Mauryans as they are and instead focusing on giving other civs more pronounced characteristics. Why don't we make some civs good at turtling, rushing or booming? That way everybody can choose a civ according to his favorite game style. Regarding archers, let's not just nerf them and take them back to what they were in A23. Instead, let's give people some tools to counter them, like each civ having units capable of crushing archers. That would make gameplay more dynamic! People will be training different units depending on the situation. In short, don't kill the low diversity present in some civilizations like Mauryans. Rather, work so that other civs have the same.

Hi, The subject of mercenaries is complex but brings an undeniable charm to combat and resource management. Proposal: Differentiate between mercenaries and citizen-soldiers. This disturbs me personally but I think these proposals can give them their expected differentiation -> An identity. Players who use it want to do battle with their opponents, either by quickly supporting an ongoing fight or by massing a beautiful, powerful army. A lot of buff and debuff ! Buff : 1-training time 2 seconds, almost instant. It is already an invaluable force. 2-No rank system, the unit is already experienced in combat. The technology for the mercenary rank is to be removed.We avoid having mercenaries who are almost stronger than a champion and we do without unnecessary rank management. 3-Stats generally higher than citizen-soldiers and lower than champions. Current rank 2 equivalent. 4-A loot bonus of 10% (it's slight but to reward the good use of these mercenaries and to affirm the difference between citizens and mercenaries. Warning, 10% of 1 ressource = ? = care. Debuff : 5-No harvest, no construction, always the possibility of repairing. 6-A low cost of food and a high cost of metal. The current cost +5 METAL and 10 for CAV provided the METAL ISSUE is solved. If players get into the habit of mining 2 metal with less wood or food harvester. So with mercenary strategy is a little different economy. METAL ISSUE : I have already spoken about it in another subject. Badosu work for more balance map, more number of METAL spot, but i like really random for avoid the system of build order like age of empire. It my opinion. But all agree for more METAL spot on map i think. Maybe we can have 2 options in lobby for random map: LOW METAL MAP AND METAL MAP NORMAL (like now+more metal spot on map). But also a new technology which increases the efficiency of the collection -> With a mine of 1000 we can collect 2000 metal with a tech in the warehouse. This means that the speed is not increased but that in the long term we will have more Metal. Others more original bulk idea: 7-This is not my delirium but I submit it to the debate, we can also imagine that the mercenaries would be recruited for a limited period, for example 5 minutes, increased to 7 in the presence of tech or heroes and would be overpowered (like champions but at the cost of a mercenaries), you get the idea? 8-Mercenary units can be given to allies. This is not a big buff or debuff but it can have a strategic aspect in team play. 11-The recruited units don't pop into the building but come from the edges of the maps ... (yeah I know it's crazy ...), both a buff and a debuff, it depends on the situation. Allows you to rush more easily for example. But who choose the position clock ?? 12-Recruitment is different. not one unit at a time but in groups of 10. A single group of the same type of unit of living mercenaries can be recruited at a time. It would only cost resources and training time of 20 seconds. Advantage: Does not cost population, units do not sleep in your houses. 12bis- We can see further with proposition 12. In this group there is an additional unit, a kind of mercernary half-hero. 500 HP which brings a military aura 20 yards around it. Increase the cost of Metal +150 compared to proposal 12. 12bis-bis Siege group made up of several soldiers (around 10) and 1 powerful siege weapon. A group quickly ready for attack with a metal cost. 13- Mercenary same cost as now but they have all upgrade because they have own gear.All uprage do not apply to them. So if you rush METAL ECO you don't need blackmisth upgrade. Really strong.

Perhaps we can use a new term: "Stealing"? Differentiates it from "Conversion" and "Capturing."

Sentry towers and palisades should be valid option to turtle in P1 but should be very weak as soon as the enemy has phased up. Maybe a P2 tech like "fire arrows" would be nice, which is especially an anti palisade / sentry tower tech.

Current plan is to revert to A23, as part of D3898. However, because of how turrets/visible garrisoning has been split from regular garrisoning, the visibly-garrisoned units no longer recover Capture Points. Which means the outpost will go neutral even if garrisoned. IMO, the solution is to remove the 'decay' feature of outposts, and barring changes that's likely what I'll do.

My opinion: Mercenaries should not need any training. They are hired, not trained, fully ready for campaign. Effect: Mercenaries train instantly or very fast (5 seconds or less). Part of a Mercenary's compensation is plunder, that sweet sweet loot they can send back to their families in Bumfuq Arcadia. Effect: The <Looter> component is disabled. Mercenaries are usually already experienced at war (or garrison duty at least). Effect: Most mercenaries train at Advanced rank. Some (Balearic Slinger, for example) train at Elite rank, with additional cost. Mercenaries are paid a wage and buy their own provisions. Effect: All mercs cost Metal and only Metal ("Coin" in Delenda Est was designed for this purpose). Cavalry mercs cost more. Hiring Mercenaries is expensive, and kings had to heavily tax their subjects in order to afford large numbers of mercenaries. Effect: A new tech at the Market, "War Taxes", gives the player a trickle of Metal from every Citizen and Trader, but reduces their gather rates.

Talking about mercenaries: This mod gives the ptol hero Ptolemy I the ability to actively convert mercenaries from the enemy for 250 metal each. So why is this mod called Midas you may ask? Because you have no choice. When you have metal left and an enemy merc is in his aura, the unit will convert until you have no metal left. mercenary-patreon.zip merc.mp4

This mod incorporates structure tree changes proposed by our historian @Thorfinn the Shallow Minded: 1. Athenians can build gym since phase 2 and train champions from it, complemented by a marathon tech to speed up champions. 2. Spartans can build Military Mess Hall in phase 2 and train the champion spearman from it. 3. Macedonians can build siege workshop in phase 2 then train siege tower and crossbow from it 4. Macedonians have access to Hetairos Companion Cavalry since phase 2. 5. Sparta and Rome get new allied slinger unit. 6. Athenians can train phase 2 champions from gym and after unlocking Iphicratean reform, marines can also be trained from the gym. 7. Romans can train Socii Slingers and Socii javelin cavalry from the new Socii Auxiliary camp, available since town phase. 8. Iberians get an unique Soliferreum elite champion javelineer unit. Newest update: compatible with A25 Git link: https://github.com/Yekaterina999/Thorfinn-Balancing-mod thorfinn.zip

ty I think it's basic and easy to set up. Advantageous for exploration, and not too punishing for a player surrounded by these outpost. But the new outpost is stupid and often counterproductive.

Hello, -Delete decay' feature of outposts should good -Outpost with men in garnison : Little vision -Outpost with men in garnison : Medium vision in A23 it a bit toxic, sometime with some civ you can(t destroy easy in early a outpost. Maybe reduce their armor or something (or make melee unit kill easy that type of building (outpost, tower rank1) :)

For Sparta, they could just have their mess hall be available to build at the Town Phase (or maybe even the Village Phase). Spartans training Spartans would be a fun novelty. Athens might be a bit trickier, but at the same time perhaps the gymnasium could be available one phase earlier. I would like to see Macedon's siege weapons available in the Town Phase alongside possibly their companion cavalry. The point is that the stoa is not necessary for this. The heavy skirmisher would be appropriate for Athens and Macedon, but those seem more like City Phase troops than Town Phase ones.

I like @Grapjas idea of showing the vision of multiple units (I suggest 5) at the same time (with all units included, not only traders). There could be some preference for units moving towards your positions. Instead of increased cost for each use I would suggest a count down - it takes some time to get useful information from the other side. The count down could either be between the bribes or (may be better) it could even take some time to get the intel ready (you pay now and after 30 seconds you get a one minute window to use the vision). Moreover, it IHMO better corresponds to the rest of the game, technologies take time to investigate, citizens take time to train.

I think it's interesting that they stop shooting arrows while they are upgrading but the hitting them and progress being stopped or lost is too much. Let's keep in mind that towers aren't very hard to destroy and rams and catapults aren't affected by them. In addition, the normal thing is precisely to go against the towers with rams, elephants or catapults so that people do not die, so the towers would practically lose all effectiveness, given that there are 5 technologies to investigate. And if they are in the game it is also to serve some purpose, otherwise it is silly to keep them. On the other hand, it is true that they can become too decisive in a 1 vs 1 in which the players are next to each other on the map. It is not the most common thing, but if this happens it can become decisive who starts to make defensive towers on the border. Not so much to prevent resources from being taken, even, as to have the border open so that no buildings can be constructed. Maybe I would reduce the attack distance range of towers in phase 1 or their ability to destroy foundations, because you practically have to leave all the way to your main city for your oponent.

I like the idea of making towers stop shooting while upgrading. Maybe if you hit them while upgrading, they could also stop or lose progress in the upgrade. I think building time of sentry tower is balanced enough though.

In 1v1s if your opponent focuses eco upgrades and on building barracks early and does not spend wood for citizen soldiers, that opens very realistically a possibility to rush with infantry. I agree with @alre, sentry towers in P1 are not the main problem, except that they are build to fast for my liking. With most civilizations, a player needs to decide if they prefer 2 sentries or a barracks (assuming you have the stone to start with). I think the main problem is that they can be upgraded conveniently in p2. https://trac.wildfiregames.com/changeset/25133 removes them being part of the phase up requirement. Also I think that sentries should not be able to fire arrows while the upgrade is in process. Oh, there is an enemy? Let me upgrade the tower right under their noses! Oh, there is an enemy and I have no tower? Let me quickly build a sentry with 40 seconds of build time and upgrade the tower right under their noses!

Thanks for organizing everything. How can I help?

After reading Gameplay issue: Booming = Turtling, I think that the increased loot could help also with this issue. Moreover, it seems to me that it would be nice to somehow punish the defenders economy for even a partially successful raid. The reason for this is that the attacker needs to take his citizen soldiers and march them to the opponent (loosing resources gather by them), while the defender only needs to take the citizen soldiers of the resources during the fight itself (while also having defensive structures). Sure the attacker is rewarded by destroying your economy but it is very risky and the motivation to do so could be better. Hence, the loot gained by destruction of houses could have two parts. First part is the one which is already present, which would remain unchanged. The second part would not only give resources to the attacker but also take them from the defender. Let say that houses would represent half of the wealth of your civilization and you have 10 houses, then if your opponent destroys one of your houses, 1/2 * 1/10 = 1/20 of your resources would be transferred to the attacker.

I must say I find it odd how most civs have no siege option in Phase 2, when you do get some turtling options (towers, etc.) That being said, I suppose it's still mostly eco growth at that point in theory and so making the fights about eco makes some sense. I agree with the notion that fights in 0 A.D. tend to disadvantage the attacker more than in say Age, since the attacker loses more eco. Increased loot might work to counter that. I think turn times are a bit of a decoy problem. I think if there were no archers in P1, you wouldn't notice it nearly as much. That being said, not against bumping them. ---- Still, I agree that late-game gets static easily, because defences are hard to break down. Personally, I think part of the problem is that garrisoning counters capturing much too strongly, making defensive buildings OP. I don't think we've addressed that yet. ---- As for game start, perhaps an option would be to make Citizen Soldiers take longer to train at the CC than at the barracks?

He's referring to the tips I suppose. Yes they are independant. There are plans to make tips scrollable and to add a start button in SP.

Ptolemies and Carthaginians are our main "mercenary" civs. To pay for their large number of mercenaries, I propose these solutions: Carthaginians were consummate traders and merchants. This mercantile empire helped them hire vast numbers of expensive mercenaries. A significant trading bonus in metal, over land and sea (above and beyond their "regular" trading bonus). Ptolemaic Egypt had a large surplus of food and would sell this surplus to international buyers (to Rome is a famous, but not the only, example). A significant bonus in bartering food to metal. A bonus in receiving metal tribute from allies.

I think the idea to make mercenaries cost more metal as well as become more powerful and lose resource gathering abilities was a great idea. The important part was to make mercenaries a more unique unit class. I think a variety of changes in different amounts could be applied to make mercenaries a fun addition to the game. A mix of: Pivoting cost a little away from metal, perhaps in exchange for a 20 decrease in metal cost the unit would have 40 more food 40 more wood or 30 more stone. Making "expertise in war" go to rank 3(and maybe affect cost?) or maybe just cheaper upgrade (300 f, 100 m) to go to rank 2. Perhaps it could be a tradeoff of some kind. Making some heroes that currently are awful have a merc bonus as a stopgap until they get historical bonuses. (be careful with Carthage -35% metal cost heroes. A more complicated, but less problematic issue with a smaller total resource cost is that it makes mercenaries the cheapest option in a full trade eco game, because the gather rates of traders are the same for each resource. It is extremely rare for games to become full trade eco games anyway, so I think this is not really a problem. I think some mix of these changes could make mercenaries a great option for civs that were intended to have good mercenaries, like Ptolemies and Carthaginians.

For me, and I think most players. (...) is my personal thoughts and suggestions The good slingers nerfed blacksmith upgrade applications. Universal siege shop all civs stables-----> (even if civ is not a super good cav civ, it is an option in certain situations) champion costs mercenaries cost idea ---> (I like the idea for mercs, but buffing the merc upgrade and adjustments to merc cost will help make them worth it) The bad stabilized gameplay "turtle" feeling in most games especially after 16-17 minutes (leads to endless games) archers OP archery tradition lost tradeoff qualities --->(maybe it should be + 20% damage and plus 10 m range but plus min range and minus HP) and free. archer eles too cheap/powerful buffed effective damage, range, and health of forts and towers. archers can kill catas and bolt shooters too easily Metal cost huge for everything, stone excess goes to powerful defenses Mercenaries cost much metal -----> (maybe move some metal cost to an asymmetric increase in food and or wood for different civs/units) size of cities because of many new buildings and stone excess and slow training----> (civ specialization/rushing --> cheaper barracks (sparta) or stable(pers) unit train times-----> (made it necessary to have 100% more barracks on average) I hope this captures many peoples most general grievances with a24, and I want to know if anyone agrees or disagrees with my suggestions! I have seen the changes being considered for a25 and I like the work going forward. Great work!

Hi, I just registered because although I read many of the things you post on the forum, I have never made up my mind or found a really good reason to do so. Reading that you need volunteers has encouraged me, even if I'm no useful to you. I've been playing 0ad for about 1 year. Although until half a year ago I was SUPER nub and until 4 months ago half nub. Now I think I'm not so much anymore. I have 1400 points more or less. Yekaterina has given me some good beating, that's for sure. I don't know anything about programming, but if you need people who are not very veteran to test the game, I'm a candidate. And I've seen that you need historians... Well, I'm not a historian but I am a PhD student of political science, so I think I can move well in the research part. Unless you need people with very specific knowledge or who already have in-depth knowledge about these civilizations. As suggestions for the multiplayer lobby (I usually play with 2 or 3 friends and we are passionate about it) it would be interesting to be able to have rankings also by teams. I know that in AoE they have something like that and I'm not looking for imitating it because 0ad is wonderful as it is, but it would be interesting because I have found that there are several groups of people who play with their own friends and it is an incentive to improve as a group. On the other hand, I was very sorry to see that in the history of civilizations you have removed a lot of information in this new version. When I discovered the game I found it very interesting because you could learn a lot about the different civilizations just by reading some of their characteristics, so I encourage you to include it again. I will keep thinking about things to make more suggestions. Let me know if you need me and for the moment that's all. Hello everybody

Which programming language? I can pick one up in the summer holidays, or even earlier. It took me 3 weeks to master python so just challenge me!

Good assessment of the problem as always. But I don't think this proposal will work. The reason why players boom the way they do is because small rushes aren't effective enough or quick enough. Players can boom women until they make a barrack to make men. If a rush comes at that point they can fend it off with production from the CC/barrack. And if a rush comes before a barrack is up then the rush is so few men that it doesn't do enough damage and can easily be fended off with just a few men being produced from the CC. The difference in men and women training times also make women much more effective since they are both cheaper and quicker produce, so rushes have to kill a lot of women to be effective. I also think this proposal would actually backfire because most players will do the boom and reach late game earlier (because of better women) at which point they can punish players that slowed themselves by rushing. I think a better solution is to make rushing less economically costly, so rushing players aren't so far behind booming players. I think this can be done in three main ways: Increase loot for kills: this will make good rushes much more effective since you will have a better eco because you rushed. It will also punish bad rushes, which is the way it should be. Most importantly, this won't change the incentives for players to make more men early just to fight off rushes (i.e. this means rushes are still possible because players' won't turtle from the start without any penalty). This is my preferred change. Increase men's gather rates and/or decrease women's gathering rates: The change in rates would need to mostly occur with wood. This means that rushers would have a better eco because they had more men than women early. But, as I said above, this will also result in some people making men for the sole purpose of fighting off rushes, which means booming will still equal turtling. Make women and men's training times the same: This will mean women are less effective at booming, so rushing won't be as costly from a unit production time. But again, this will also result in some people making men for the sole purpose of fighting off rushes, which means booming will still equal turtling.

I really wish there was a rule of max 1 gameplay change per month.

my personal complaint is what they did to the Outpost, they were almost useless .

Probably they should cost fairly standard resources. One idea that borg was rather favourable towards was having helots be cheaper at the cost of worse combat strength. This kind of practice could be extended to other units as well such as the Persian spearman. I would go with something conservative like -10% resource cost for -15-20% hitpoints. Obviously those numbers could be up for debate, but I think that it could be worth experimenting worth if you want to try that out as well. Fantastic work. My thoughts exactly. One of the key sorts of ways I think would be interesting to see would be something along the line of one approach making the Spartans be more like officer units while the other would allow for a larger mass that could be fielded.

If I remember, not only Stoa is historically wrong, but those mercenaries too. Perhaps changing the name of these units is necessary to historically correct mercenary unit. A specialist in Greek culture would be interesting here.

Remind me to make you an icon for that.

The Mercenary champion camp for Athens:

So, as colleagues say, unfortunately, these cases of players fleeing the game have been occurring more frequently when they are about to lose. I will not publish the previous ones because I intend to confront again the players who left their games because I believe that there was some problem - I choose to give them a second chance. …But well… It is already the 3rd or 4th game with this user that he simply leaves the game when he feels he is going to lose. I am 0xD3C0.de and the player reported is 1979ad. @user1 metadata.json commands.txt

Some time ago I created a group on Telegram to talk about 0 A.D. I hope that at some point in the future it becomes one more channel to add people to the community of 0 A.D. contributors. - https://t.me/joinchat/FO5I-efo5jwOcNS7 Hey @borg-, dont leave us!

Could foundations be made invisible to other players? I always liked that approach better.

Put me in coach! I'm ready! Positives: I can work on component scripts and templates. I can also do low-fi texture work if push comes to shove. I'd be very happy to run sandbox balance tests and discuss high-level design-theory-crafting (as much as time allows) if the need arises. Negatives: I don't have any hands on multiplayer experience, nor have I been able to watch enough A24 competitive to authoritatively opine on the current gestalt balance-state. My coding skills are also entirely self-taught. So exercise caution when handling anything I produce. Plus, my old Linux laptop is currently in a coma, and I was never very good at using it anyway. Thus I am Windows 10 bound at this time, and trying to get into your version control system confuses and frightens me... If you think you can use any of my services, please point me at a task.

This is a good consideration, perhaps some kind of color change on the market icon is good. It should not be too easy to adjust, but then again, the most scarce resource may not be the one the player wants. The main thing I want to know is if people think this is a good gameplay mechanic that should be implemented or tested in a mod.

When it comes to elite rank soldiers, I would like to remind you of how strong they can be. Even without micro, elite javelin cavalry can beat spear cavalry. Elite sword cavalry has a base of 6 pierce armor and 250 HP and good DPS, making it a very good units against ranged units and siege. When the Elite sword cavalry is compared to the champion spear cavalry, the Elite sword cavalry is surprisingly good considering its costs. Furthermore elite swordsmen are comparable to skiritai commandos while the mercenary probably will be cheaper. I think that is something people should keep in mind.

I like how it looks. It makes me want to try stealing animals ...

I personally would love a coin system, but: 1. I don't know how to program this 2. Makes learning curve even more difficult for new players

I know, we will try ... .I lose nothing asking them and negotiating with them.

@faction02 @ValihrAnt @Grapjas

So many scientists and engineers player this game! I would expect the players to be historians but the reality defies my expectations. Good to see so many role models for me learn from Don't approximate pi = e =3 pls

Stan asked me to follow up on this. But I will link it to the correct post.

It does not make a lot of sense to have this discussion on a purely theoretical basis. Here are the mods: better-gather-rates.zip inrease-loot.zip Personally I think both options could work. And also farmlands or reduced number of gatherers per field. @chrstgtr since you wrote about two of your mentioned options, that you don't believe they will change anything (so booming is still = turteling), I didn't include them.

Seja bem vindo ao fórum ! : )

Or remove the ability to train the worker elephant at the civic centre? Britons start with a war dof and Kushites start with a healer while those can't be trained at the civic centre.

If we had the map resize patch for Atlas, then it would be a lot easier to make different size versions of the skirmish maps indeed.