Leaderboard

Hi all I'm a c++ programmer, coming from Ogre3d and then unreal I discovered this project by searching a RTS open source, hopely to help here to program and building in blender buildings

I come to suggest that walls should only be attackable by siege, and maybe elephants, but not by soldiers. There are two reasons motivating this proposal: Walls are rarely used in the game, the reason is that the cost/benefit is very low. I just played a game in which I decided to surround my city with walls, to avoid it being simply taken by horses, to discover that my enemy brought (roman) swordsmen, destroyed the wall in less than a minute with the swordsmen and took my city. Not only this is completely unrealistic, but also makes the wall even more useless than I thought... When attacking the iberians, sometimes my own soldiers end up attacking the walls instead of soldiers, which is completely useless. I think that removing the possibility of walls being attacked by anything but siege may improve things.

Hello everyone from southern Germany! (originally form the northern part ). BTW, is there a region statistics somewhere on this forum? (for the German beancounters among us )

Well, me thinks the biggest issue with walls is placing and repairing

I found that some how only first frame applied the resize. despite that I explicitly resized the animations frame per frame (and this was very hard since both my CPU and GPU are @#$%).

I think the best approach is to reduce sword damage against walls for significant amount and make the infantry prefer targeting units over structure.

@real_tabasco_sauce I was using Persians and these were stone walls, and I had developed the "Persian architecture" tech. The enemy simply "cut" the wall with roman swordsmen; more than one segment of wall btw. They were a lot of swordsmen, but still... @Dizaka what you mention about the usage of walls as obstacles is true and I do it as well, but with palisades. Stone walls, on the contrary, are much more expensive and take longer to build, and usually you expect them to protect your city hermetically from whatever that comes without siege. Normally it works that way, ranged units cannot break down a wall, and this is the expected behavior. I was expecting the same for any kind of soldier units, but enough swordsmen can bring down walls. In my experience, in multiplayer games (which I play a lot), the only ones that build stone walls are new players expecting they will protect them. I never see experienced players building stone walls.

Hi @kennethmartin I am sure others will welcome you and get you up to speed, but I figured I would share you a few helpful links. This is where you can see all the tickets: https://trac.wildfiregames.com/report/3 How to build the latest revision https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/BuildInstructions Writing patches with svn https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/SubmittingPatches phabricator: https://code.wildfiregames.com/

I don't know whether that is true (never itnended to compete with commercial platforms). However, the game competes extremely well with commercial platforms thanks to volunteers like @Stan`, @vladislavbelov, @wowgetoffyourcellphone and others who have been contributing to this project for any length of time.

Not that I am very relevant in this discussion (playing only casually against AI), but to me, 0ad is one of the best and most interesting games I have seen AND it has many mods and config options AND it is historically fascinating (I keep learning about about old cultures both from the game and from the this forum) AND, btw., it is free of charge. Game mechanics and UI may look old fashioned to some, but the user interface of a cardboard chess game is also old fashioned. So what? I don' think this is the point. It is particularly interesting to nerds like myself to play a game that delivers this level of excellence in historical relation while gameplay is sufficiently complex - and constantly challenged and improved. Of course, there are bugs and inconsistencies, and the game is not "finished" (but which one is ever? Can you name one that is perfect?). AFAIK, it was never intended to compete with commercial platforms anyway. And yes, there are also noobs and smurfs and all that in the multiplayer environment - but this is life. Those looking for a clean platform and mates truly and exclusively matching their level might need to pay for this as a service in a "gated community". You don't find this in the wild. Bottom line: I like it as it is evolving, and I don't think it will die so soon. Let's tune down the volume a bit.

Yeah. We should scrub as many pre-Alpha 26 images as possible and push stuff like this: Keeping old stuff around for nostalgia doesn't help promote a modern game. The game itself is also bloated with about 50 maps which are sub par and a bunch of old sub par world assets too. If a tree looks bad, we need to delete it. If a map is bad, delete it. Old textures, delete or update. For nostalgia or access to the older assets, the old alpha releases are always available for archeologists.

Even if a game is not competitive its still important to have game design depth that allows players to continue to improve. Improvements in some areas are needed: civ differentiation: more to learn for each civ melee/ranged re-balance, and unit specific upgrades: more complexity to upgrade valuation and choice of unit composition. performance upgrades: games will run faster with less lag and will make it harder for a slow player to keep up with the multitasking of a fast player multiplayer oriented, strategic, balanced maps, option for fixed positions. Maps designed for gameplay with diverse focuses and different dominant strategies. From what I've heard and seen there is work underway in almost all of these categories. I don't think the future for 0ad is that bleak to be honest. Thanks to all the devs and contributors who've put in time for 0ad!

@guerringuerrin The first gameplay changes were just fixing the han fields. I would guess we would gradually introduce more comprehensive changes to see what can be accomplished with the mod. For example, @LetswaveaBook's idea about house women training is not a drastic overhaul so I think it would be an easy next step for the mod. Adding gameplay features quickly can still leave time for people to comment on them so long as they dont interfere with each other. For example, the sparta overhaul followed by a cavalry rework can be tested and evaluated independently in the same mod. But we should certainly leave time for players to evaluate and play new features before we add ones that are dependent on those earlier additions. I don't think we should be afraid to add gameplay elements that we are not 100% sure are improvements, because getting player feedback is essential to improving the game, and the mod can be changed and updated semi-continuously. We should look into ways to ensure only the most recent version of the mod is playable, because players could have the tendency to settle on the older version and not care to try anything new, which is what the mod is all about (as I understand it).