Leaderboard

I am pretty sure I have seen some of these arguments being used for adding stables. This not only contradicts the thesis of the thread but implies that building footprints and the fact that being scouted are actually side effects. What about house footprints? I am sure at times, that's an inconvenience too. The point isn't to create an autochess. Scouting introduces a new dynamic which is desired because the objective isn't linear gameplay. And I disagree that your opponent finding out that you are massing cav is actually a failure in game design. An equally valid stance is believing that not being able to scout stables gives an unfair advantage to the attacker and overpowers early cav strats. Ask any AoE2 player and they would probably agree with the latter. tl:dr; are these actually problems with stables?

two 0AD games, 1 replay 1 live ———— Game 1: zxphxr (1229) vs reinstalled (1216) Game 2: zxphxr (1258) vs Diogenes PotMan ———— send me ur replays to make videos of: zephyramethyst1@gmail.com

Just because you have an option to play with cavalry doesn't mean that it should always be viable. RTS is simply about adapting to the game you are in at that moment with the tools you've been given. Which is why pizza maps (or other weird settings) can be fun, because it shows when someone relies on a strict strategy across the game.

We also need g=9.8 +-0.1 ms^-2 (to 2s.f) and not some javlins experiencing g=42 right next to some archers with g=17 nonsense

Deepl translation: Thanks! 1. Interesting suggestion, it might be nice to have indeed. 2. The problem is, people can just close the game forcefully, bypassing any 'option' given by the game itself. And since it is possible to return to a match, having an 'exit' option sounds fair.

Okay, I just tested it by starting some games with an AI teammate while I am Iberians. By checking the replay I confirmed the following: changing my status to enemy removes the building from their units' building panels deleting all my units and cc (becoming defeated) removes the building from their units' building panels changing my status to neutral removes it from their building panel, and if I ally them again it reappears in their building panels. (That is, once I have sent them 1,000 stone and they accept my alliance offer. )

atrepar exited without resigning @user1 metadata.json commands.txt

Requiring stables is more expensive than having a barrack that can produce inf+cav. Stables make rushing less viable for p1 because it means a failed rush strategy can't be easily converted to boom strat. I don't think this is good thing. After p1, I don't think stables changes the game a ton. But I also don't see any real benefits of having stables and I haven't seen anyone put forth an argument on why they should exist where the reason why didn't already exist (i.e., scouting is always beneficial--I always want to know if my enemy made early military buildings). I'm personally not a fan because of this p1 issue and how it took away civ differentiation, but I am not losing a ton of sleep over it. Lastly, it isn't helpful to tell people to buzz off when they describe how they want the game to become. Sometimes people want the game to revert to have features it used to have. If you don't like that then you never should've downloaded a25 and should go back to a24 (see how unhelpful that line of reasoning is?).

γεια σας εχετε φτιαξει ενα παρα πολυ καλο παιχνιδι,δυο πραγματα ομωσ μπορουν να γινουν καλυτερα. 1. Στο ονλαιν 1ν1 οταν παταει παυση καποιος να υπαρχει χρονικο οριο,προτινωμενο 3 λεπτα. 2.στο ονλαιν 1ν1 να μη εχει επιλογη να τερματισει το παιχνιδι μονο να παραδοθει.

On the chess website Lichess there is a solution. If a player disconnects a timer runs down. If time is up, the opponent can declare victory or draw. If the player returns before the timer runs up, the match continues and the timer gets resetted. Ddoses are not really a problem there. Maybe a similar timer would be a good solution in 0ad? For examples a 3 min timer. Maybe there needs to be an additional mechanism which prevents players from abusing the timer though.

https://releases.wildfiregames.com/

Huseyin is complaining about cavalry being too OP and the stables are helping his opponents to spam out cavalry too quickly, therefore in order to resolve this problem from the root we must first NERF cavalry units in general, then consider changes to stables. The acceleration mechanics of A26 will be a blow to the strength of cavalry, so I believe this part of the problem will be fixed. Furthermore, we can decrease the attack value of javlin cavalry to 16, equal to their infantry counterparts. If Huseyin is discontent with spamming stables, then perhaps we can raise the stone cost to 100, identical to a that of a barrack. I cannot understand why the stables should be any cheaper than barracks or vice versa.

metadata.jsoncommands.txtOrangeBiggie fled without excuse. @user1

just give cav same amount of HP as infra units and you got issue resolved. Cavalery should be fast for providing quick support and retreat. Anyway should not be the only army... Lowering HP will do the work.

Hi everyone new release of HC has just happened check out https://www.moddb.com/mods/hyrule-conquest/downloads and download HC node bases plus hotfix 0.12. Have a nice day.

Just watched the vid from MysticJim, stellar job @Langbart. A suggestion is to implement a mnemonic device between the position of the item on the buildmenu on the right and the keyboard. Like aoe4 does for example:

You heathen!!