Leaderboard

When I play Britons and my allies play Gauls and Mauryas

good question. I always thought it was the third one, but now I want to hear it from someone who actually likes the high popcap games. anyone? in the end, you still have a game that is like rock-paper-scissors, where rock and paper overlap for a good part (booming=turtling), so the third option (rushing) cannot compete. you gotta decouple the best booming strategy from the best defensive strategy, otherwise you'll still have everyone going for that one strategy only.

Didn't know, and searching with the wrong questions again. Thanks.

Just to share with the community (not my channel obviously):

I didn't have much time for a proper response, so I fed my quick thoughts into ChatGPT and ask it to make that into a full answer. You might need to clarify whether you're asking about general player preferences in RTS games or specifically about their behavior in the current alpha of 0 A.D. If it's the latter, I have some insights: APM and Gameplay Style: Fast economic growth (booming) requires high APM (actions per minute). Many players, especially those who aren't pros, find it easier to focus on either growing their economy or fighting, but not both simultaneously. As a result, they often switch from economic growth to combat at a certain point. Engaging all units in battle means there's less economic management needed. Full Population Strategy: Reaching full population with all upgrades provides players with confidence. They know their opponent won't have more units or better technology if they themselves have maxed out their capabilities. Early Attacks: If an opponent attacks early, they spend significant time moving their units across the map, which can be inefficient. Subsequent reinforcements also take longer to arrive, potentially weakening the attack. The question might not be about wanting smaller fights. Instead, your concerns could be addressed by improving the UI to make unit management easier.

I fall in favor of the less-units side of this debate, but I will concede that this is probably true. But, what would be even more useful, is knowing why larger unit counts appeal to prospective players in spite of the performance tradeoffs. Is it because larger fights take longer to resolve, which means players have more time to re-deploy their forces and rectify the trajectory of bad engagements without needing a million apm? Is it the gambler's thrill of committing all the fruits of 20-30 minutes of investment in city building and logistics into a single potentially game ending clash? Is it the visual spectacle of hundreds of units smashing against each other? (This last seems unlikely to me, since units continue to pack so densely that individuals smear together into an undifferentiated blob.) If we had an answer to that question, maybe there would be a way to improve performance without degrading the special appeal of 0ad's ambitious scale in the minds of its playerbase.

I'd prefer if we don't continue mirroring after the migration. With Gitea we'll have an accessible platform for contributors and I'd argue the disadvantages of mirrors outweigh their benefits.

Hey the siege engine were moved to another building called the arsenal

Is this reddit now ? can you stop removing my posts ?? ffs ! soydittor moderator