Leaderboard

I’m mostly fine with them. Except for how they take forever to make. I can have all the resources and 10 unit producing buildings and I will still choose not to produce them during a battle because their production is so long that my army will become too small by the time they’re ready to fight. Having to unlock them is also a pain that I find unnecessary.

My general feeling is that Champs could be a little weaker and a lot cheaper. I have no hard data to show, though. Just my general feeling. I like Age of Mythology's "champ" cost ratio to standard units better than 0 A.D.'s. So, that colors my view, for sure.

You really just can make up stuff to try prove your points. Since now talk about my gamplay specifically with females I'll explain the principle with witch I play: You don't need to aim for a specific army strength, as to win your opponent, you need a stronger army relative to him, not absolute (seems obvious right?, well it's not for most that will always fight maxed out). Therefor if you can send your forces early with upgrades but you are keeping a high female count to keep up eco, you can win over a opponent aiming for a later 'ready' timing. Instead of taking off the pressure your opponent when you need wood (by recalling CS to gather it). It's better to just make more females, even in late game. CS gathering wood are just a loss of efficiency since they are just costlier units that gather at about the same rate. When booming, if you have some hunt, making cavs instead of inf makes food even 'cheaper' then wood (gathering food is very efficient with cavs), and cavs can be used harrass your opponent. Since food is now so cheap, making females is even more worth it. This is how you can storm your opponent with cav harrassment and chain up with some rams early enough. You might have 100-120 females min 13-14 but you got rams AND harassed your opponent all game AND you have a bunch of cavs that are a bit stronger then inf. Sometimes if your ally isn't going to help you until himself is maxed out, you have no choice then you make the exact same strategy. Likewise, you are likely you meet opponent with the "classical" army size, so if you don't know when to retreat, just copying the "classical" army strength is also a good choice. Theses are the reasons why players locked in the local optimum of 60/200 in my opinion, as myself have experienced the need to going for this for the reasons above. Females ARE more cost efficient then CS in theory, so ofc that the reasons they aren't used more comes from other reasons then 'it's the better play to make only 60'.

well I typically don't play past a 200 pop cap, but I have seen comments on youtube videos (like release trailers or 0ad reviews from youtubers) that seem pretty thrilled about the big battles and the graphics. So I would bet these are factors that drive interest in the game.

Hello, all! I'm glad to be a part of this community. . . seeing as it's customary for new members to introduce themselves, here's a little bit about myself. I'm interested in everything from politics to technology, with my favorite author being Tolkien, my favorite means of procrastination as watching anime, my favorite music being from the classical and romantic eras, and my favorite film being Amadeus. Hope to see you all around the forums!

I'm sure I don't. but I always thought 0ad has too much units overlap. It was me that suggested the changes to unit pushing from a25 to a26.

Something very important to me: the special ablities Almost all mythological units have special abilities and have a cooldown bar that most be filled to use the ability again. It would be great to add this mechanic to infantry units to throw a javelin, especially for the Romans who throw the pilum.

I'd like to keep up diversifying champion units. I think it could be cool to let the kushite axe champs be a bit cheaper, weaker, but fast moving. We did the chariot mixin, longsword mixin (not comm mod, but could be), we have the persian immortals weapon switching now. Any other ideas?

It won't change anything--it'll be cost prohibitive. What's the point of having it? It adds a ton of time and costs a ton to do. Don't care. No one is going to spam forts to use as a barrack. Fine. I would probably be more radical but conservative is a better approach. If that makes champs too strong then champs' stats should be nerfed. My view is: if you can afford it, it should be available. Everything else, including long train time and locking them behind a tech, just encourages CS spam.

@chrstgtr I appreciate your reply. It's 100% valid perspective and is one of valid opinions. It doesn't mean it's correct or wrong and that alre's one is correct or wrong. It's just different opinion and that's normal in human societies. To give my perspective. This thread is started long ago and meanwhile I played like 2000 games of SC 1 which is very hard mechanically (old) + very competitive on Ladder. SC 1 as we know don't give a @#$% about fact that newbies find it hard to queue 1 by 1 unit from 5-10 different facilities and that you need to select them 1-by-1, unlike 0AD, SC2 or other RTS. You can't select more then 12 units as well. And many other things. And now, that's where philosophy comes into play. I do think SC 1 is awesome game and I personally wouldn't change it although I am new. I like it more then SC 2 in almost every aspect. In that sense regarding 0AD, I don't necessary think we need to adapt to newbies, but as Alre said, game is not made only for PROs.... Some people (not me) like to play it semi-casually and it must be taken into consideration. That's also what new RTSes goes towards and I personally think it's bad thing. But 0AD community needs to choose top level strat of what we want to have and stick to that (for some time at least). So 1, 2 and 3. arguments are correct but come out of not necessary correct premise, unless we want high competitive game. Which is not good or bad on it's own ofc. Nor it's only way to make game more competitive. "Make bigger crowd to make it harder".... not sure that's correct. IDK tho. 4. It's nice to hear. I did notice better performance in a26 which is nice. Idk what other solutions are in pipeline, but I guesstimate fewer units would be much easier approach and it works without too much involvement of developers (which is problem for open-source projects afaik). Especially if we all like to see fewer units on screen for whatever reasons. Also, recently I have less problems with first 3 points, especially since someone showed me Alt+right click to split units. But I still don't like of that mass of units, mostly for visual reasons but also for reason stated in point 1. (not always tho). I also don't like graphics and fact it's hard to distinguish my own units from opponents. That's my problem with all modern games, aoe 3,4, SC 2, WC3, etc. In that sense AOE 2 DE is perfect, it's more simple, less effects and it's obvious what unit belongs to who. New games are just overwhelmed... All that combined is hard for my eyes, I feel blind and tired after 1 single game. You can now argue it could be my lap-top or my body, which is also true to some extend, but it's same as discussion about topic from start of this message. Again, don't take this personally. I don't say i am right and don't want to force changes. I just want to give my perspective and to hear what others think. I mean title of this theread is with question not exclamation mark.... I like democratic approach. But yeah, I am new i need to adapt to game, not game to myself. Again thanks for feedback, sincerely appreciate that.

I can certainly send you a ton of replays.

Sigh. Must you always disagree with everything? I do not know how to drive an F1 car. If I tried, I would probably go very slow or crash and die. But I am a very good driver in a street-ready automatic transmission car. I'm not asking F1 to change their car designs because Toyota else invented a less problematic Camry for me. Sometimes things are foreign. Sometimes foreign things are difficult to adapt to. That's ok.

@BeTe you mentioned it is helpful if people respond. So here I go. 1. You're right, it is because you are new. I used to have same problem. 2. Same. It is because you are new. I also used to have this problem. 3. Same. You get better with time, which I know from personal experience. 4. Agree. There are other fixes, though. Some of those are already in the pipeline. So, basically, I would challenge almost all of your premises on why it is a problem.

No disrespect but you have some things to learn about 0AD. I think you're the one who created another thread on whether 0AD should have less units on the screen. In that thread, the OP started with a bunch of premises (like it's hard to identify the types of units present), which just aren't true once you get more experience playing. All this is to say, yes, OAD is different from some other RTS. That doesn't necessarily make it worse, though. And, I suspect a lot of the opinions you are saying now will change as you gain more experience/get better at the game and realize some of the things you are doing now don't make a ton of sense. Anyways, cheers and welcome to the community.

Once you’re fighting with champions you’re generally engaged in constant fight. The fact that they can’t gather is irrelevant as you generally would never use them for that. They’re more expensive for the reason you identify—they’re stronger. One can argue on whether their costs, in terms of resources and train time, are property set

New helmets and textures, yes. Not yet, I am still updating the mod using the A23 version. I'll still ask people around about the changes in the simulation files in SVN version in order to fully update the mod.

You have perfectly described one of the advantages it provides. Is it good or bad? It's not the point. The point is that if one user uses it and another doesn't, the user who uses it has an advantage over the other. Are we for or against that? That is the underlying discussion. All I'm saying is: in a competitive environment those criteria have to be clear and there have to be ways to enforce those criteria. And that is why every serious multiplayer game defines what modifications are allowed or not in the competitive environment. I rarely use the word cheater to refer to these advantages and disadvantages problems that certain mods have. But there is something that is very clear: your mod uses macros to automate tasks, moving units automatically at the start of the game without the player having to do nothing more than setting some options before the game. It produces units according to available resources and housekeep and does so automatically. Shares resources automatically and even in numbers that the vanilla version does not allow. There is a very big difference between a player who has a macro that makes those calculations and executes the orders instantly and another player who has to use his head and hands to do it. It is not so difficult to understand and accept. When we move from a GUI modification to automating game commands and functions, then we can no longer simply call that a "GUI modification". proGU: It also has some modifications to the GUI to show inactive units and buildings. Or calculate a K/D ratio to see how you're doing in battle (not sure if you implemented this feature in the end) or be able to share resources by clicking on the player in the boonGUI-based resource table. Features that I particularly find very interesting and valuable for the game. I don't consider myself someone who only seeks to ban features. This is a debate in which everyone has their opinion. But if that's your opinion, there's nothing I can do. I agree. There is no point in carrying out an effort like this. I think it's a matter of working on balance and improving AI. I don't think it's necessary to create a mod to auto-snipe neither In my opinion, this type of thing is important to develop in the vanilla game because otherwise the same thing happens again, those who have and those who do not have the mod. And judging by the events of the last year that will only lead to more divisions.

before my patch (not on phab yet): after:

I think the portraits of the iber heroes also all look like they've been radioactively damaged.