Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 2021-10-23 in Posts

  1. Players should not start with 5,000 Stone and 5,000 Metal right next to their Civic Center. I understand that not all maps have that setup, but since mainland is the primary map that people play this should be implemented for mainland maps. And most maps :p. Here is why I think the change should happen: For a fair amount of games, 5,000 may be all the metal and stone a player needs for the entire game. That is too simple. Civilizations that use slingers or mercenaries (I'm looking at you, Ptolemies and Carthaginians) have the bonus of having their resource gatherers be protected by the Civic Center. This gives 2 advantages: Miners are protected from early raids Farmers are more easily protected from early raids since you can just garrison the miners in the Civic Center and then ungarrison them toward the enemy. Instead, there should be 1 small stone mine and 1 small metal mine having no more than 500 of each resource, similar to how there are a few straggler trees near the CC at the beginning of a game. Then on the outside of their starting territory should be larger mines, similar to how there are large forests for wood. The challenge of this layout would be increased difficulty of protecting farmers from raids for all civs throughout phase 2. It would favor players raiding food economy. But there are defensive structures and building-layout strategies that can be used to mitigate the danger. (Maybe cost and/or build time of palisade walls could be adjusted to support this change?) This would also make scouting important so know if your opponent is leaving their farmers vulnerable in order to boom or build military faster. Thank you for reading!
    4 points
  2. Thank you for naming it after me! Let's commit it and implement into A26? By the way, there is a city called Yekaterinburg located in Perm province of Russia, and it has similar geography to your map.
    3 points
  3. This reminds me of a map called Anatolia, in Age of Mythology. A fine addition to the game. I mean, the water could mean rivers or lakes (still mainland themed). It's just that water is not the main feature of the map and can be ignored. It does allow Athens to build marines though.
    3 points
  4. the whole point of mainland map is that there is no sea. that's why it's called mainland.
    3 points
  5. Another simple but powerful idea I wanted to suggest: What are your thoughts on implementing a tiny stat boost / unboost based on the territory your units are standing on? Whether for health or how well an unit preforms in combat or some other unit stat. It would be identical to how a hero boosts the strength of units close to them but for territory. It's based on the idea that when near their home, soldiers feel safer and can preform better... when in an enemy's territory by comparison, they're more scared and might preform a bit more poorly. The phase of the territory you're standing on should increase the effect, thus village is weaker (it's a small and weak place) town is normal (a larger and more crowded establishment) and city is stronger (big city so more reason to feel safe / scared). Optionally there could be a bravery upgrade that can be researched to mitigate this. The gameplay effect would of course be that attackers have a somewhat harder time conquering an enemy base. I envision it as something among the following lines: Own territory, +1.0 boost: Soldiers are fighting in their home and feel braver. Allied territory, +0.5 boost: Soldiers are fighting in the territory of an ally, they feel safer but it's not their own home, halved boost effect. Neutral territory, 0.0 boost: Units are battling in a place owned by no one or a neutral faction, no buff / debuff. Enemy territory, -1.0 boost: Your army is alone on the enemy's land, they're nervous and may have a harder time preforming.
    2 points
  6. Which is why it would need to be paired with compensatory nerfs to other components of defenders advantage. Maybe get rid of the CC's attack so people will stop clustering their farms around the thing?
    2 points
  7. and it's very much into Russia's mainland.
    2 points
  8. They indeed have steeper benefits, but it is a lot harder for them to promote, even if ranged units need more xp. Xp is gained per damage dealt and ranged units deal more damage and aren't prone to dying as much a frontliners. Also, promotion is a subject we could tackle in other ways. I was playing with Leonidas and had hoplite tradition, so you expect to do more damage and get easy promotions for the hoplites. That was not the case in the battles.
    1 point
  9. This seems like a situation where both sides have a case. You want to play the game until your army's defeated. The other side wants to guard against the problem of people who fight all the way down to the last unit and cause silly lengthening of games. In a situation where neither side is clearly in the right, you should negotiate it out beforehand.
    1 point
  10. In a25, champions have been considered by some to be op in general. Particular champions are more problematic than others, and it seems very easy (and cheap) to maintain a champion mass once it has been established. Champions are fun to use and they should be very powerful units, but they should not be easier to use than CS. Please consider the following ideas, counter them, or bring up your own; I am interested to hear. Broad armor reduction (this way it will be harder and more expensive to keep a mass of champions, which will also help prevent the champion armies from growing as easily as they do now). Special attention would be paid to some of the worse offending categories like cavalry overall, and iber firecav and consular bodyguard. return champion training to fortress/unique building with no unlock technology. Also, give some kind of nerf to training champion from barracks/stable (or batch buff to training in fort). The purpose of this is to make it easier to train some champions and harder to make a lot. Allow some mechanic to make CS at rank 1, 2, or 3 without fighting. The purpose of this is to allow a player to make some kind of economy vs military decision for the CS, and to help bridge the power gap between champions and CS. My favorite idea (not sure who thought of it) to implement this was to add the rank 2 option in barracks/stable in p2 and give it extra cost in the form of food wood and metal, subsequently rank three in phase 3.
    1 point
  11. 1 point
  12. This new random map will probably get into the next release of Community Maps. It's mostly Mainland with some elements of Latium added. The res and trees, etc. are the same as Mainland vanilla. Any suggestions for it? Other opinions?
    1 point
  13. I always was told that an attacker needed to have about 3x the strength of the defender to be confident of winning. Defence naturally gives advantages. A25 does not feel like this at all.
    1 point
  14. Something I noticed about snowballing is the imbalance of ranged/melee units, where ranged units are more valuable/important. If you defeat an opponent in a battle, he loses some of his ranged units. While the winner only loses some melee units and keeping the more valuable/important ranged units alive. Currently, you only IMHO need enough melee units to tank enemy fire. So having lost some melee units is not bad as long as you have enough to tank opposing fire, In some situations having about 10% melee units can be enough in these situations. If you have most of your ranged (&valuable/important) units alive, then you remain at nearly full firepower. So here is another way for me to advocate reducing the power of ranged units.
    1 point
  15. turtling is not a bad thing, many players like that strategy and should be given the opportunity to enjoy it. hence, there is no need to just penalise turtling in every change to the game. actually, turtling is pretty weak in this alpha and I don't think that buffing it would be bad at all.
    1 point
  16. @user1 My lobby name: Beaugoux Offender: DCM DCM quite the game when he was lossing. commands.txt
    1 point
  17. Offence Reporting A sure-fire way to get your concerns read and addressed! Be sure to post with not only a modicum of dignity and self-esteem, but also a profound respect and understanding of others and their limits. Do not imperiously demand immediate solutions. Currently only supporting 1 vs. 1 Rated Game offence reports. Help & Support Dear User, If you would like to report someone, please observe the following steps to ensure that your concern is noted. It is necessary for you to create a post on this thread detailing the incident and including the replay file. When reporting a player, it is mandatory to upload the correct replay. Instructions: Locate replay at Main Menu/Multiplayer/Replays Select replay and note replay file path. Go to path in your file manager, locate the file named "commands.txt" Upload commands.txt to the Forums (account creation required) Tag @user1 Please state your lobby username and the lobby username of the offending player. You will not be notified of the result automatically, you may view the ongoing status of our progress at the bottom of this first post. Execution of these steps will lead to your report being noted and filed, then inspected and processed. (in due time) We thank you for your co-operation and wish you happy gaming. Find more detailed instructions below: Progress Report:
    1 point
  18. Definitely that would be fair. True, but her ability was in recruiting foreign leaders to side with her. Her retreating at the Battle of Actium was baffling at least in my opinion. Neither of these really are the makings of a 'hero,' but I am sure that there are some qualities to her I've missed. I would support this even though he was not ruling during the Golden Age, but that would definitely be contingent on Sparta having access to pikemen. While Iphicrates is hardly bad, he is again outside the scope of Athenian hegemony. Aristides would be a redundancy to me. Pericles fills the role of statesmen pretty well as is. Thucydides was a phenomenal historian; his quality as a general is difficult to assess as he is only known for being late to the Battle of Amphipolis. Another alternative I would offer would be for Cimon to be represented.
    1 point
  19. Good idea! I have no idea how to do that though, or what textures I should use. Can anyone tell me how to do that, or make a pull request? The code is here. Ok, so to work around that fair point, I created a version with higher water (so docks can be built) but gave it a different name. It's called @Yekaterinaville. And both versions are in the community maps 2 repo.
    1 point
  20. Click on following There should be option to unfollow
    1 point
  21. @andy5995 Very nice thank you! Echoing @alre 's comment, you could have an almost "sibling" map without water or with steep cliffs as @wowgetoffyourcellphone already mentioned (if it's worth the effort).
    1 point
  22. Could you host a game and test it with a local friend? You can open the "Network host statistics" via F11 (try Alt+F11 if the former won't work) and toggle through till you see it. The RTT value (aka ping) is what you are looking for. The value for your local friend should be very low. If not, something is wrong, report back if this is the case for you. The lobby itself is hosted by WildFireGames (the maker of 0ad), but all the games you play connect you directly to the game's host. Depending on your location (many players are located in Europe/USA/South America) and internet quality, certain players may experience delays. Using an Ethernet cable can help reduce latency a bit. Another option would be to create your own server lobby for India. There are detailed instructions in this GitHub repo, but that's probably not the answer you're looking for. github.com/0ad/lobby-bots
    1 point
  23. Love it! Finally Mainland has some water for navy. 1 suggestion: make the shorelines less steep so that docks can be built there.
    1 point
  24. @Stan` which is the standard for an in-game image, especially something the size of the storehouse.
    1 point
  25. I'd say add a cliff texture along the shoreline, assuming you don't want any naval access.
    1 point
  26. I am going to design the final version of this. I lost the original. the photo of this is a kind of water supply in a town 64 km from the capital. This is exactly a "naciente". It is exactly my concept of water supply, since it is in a rural area, with almost no industrial technology, primitively molded by human beings, at most stones and concrete, wood, The rest is all natural and caused by mountain water.
    1 point
  27. Would discourage rushes and favour turtling. Terrible if implemented in 1v1 games
    1 point
  28. @lagger, I think you are jumping on conclusions to quickly. First of all, you assume someone misused their powers, whereas a little more interest in that person might bring you on other views. For the case of being expected to resign after your allies have lost, that is indeed something. Against 4 opponents you won't have a fair chance and that is something you understood as well. Noobdude decided to close the game, which seems rude to you. In 0ad we are in the inconvenient position that if the host leaves the game, the game closes. That aside, I think the notion of ''rude'' depends on how you view it. Obviously you might have fun trying to defend, but what if the other 4 players just consider it a waste of time? Is it then still rude to leave the game? The answer on that question depends on what is bringing you towards the game and if that is competitive play, then winning 4v1 is not your thing. So probably those people view that you are just wasting their time by trying to play 4v1, while the game is all ready over in their view. Also, if they think that someone who drags unwinnable games on, they might consider that annoying. So is a person allowed to kick someone from a game if they consider that person annoying? Or let me rephrase it: Do you have to accept annoying people in your games? If the answer is "no", then you can hardly call that an abuse of power. While I (hope to) understand your point of view, there are people with other views. I think that both views should be respected and phrases as "rude" and "abuse of power" are not in place. Also if you don't like Noobdude or anyone in particular, you could always host your own games and decide with who you want to play.
    1 point
  29. Maybe we should use the same abbrevations as used in-game there?
    1 point
  30. I really hate the champion unlock techs. I feel like they're completely unnecessary, or cost too much/take too long to research as you indicate.
    1 point
  31. I think that match will go down in 0 A.D. history, honestly. It's that good. But I wish we could see more champions and ranged siege. More chariots from Britons, more swordsmen from Romans. Units who make these civs unique, and they should be viable.
    1 point
  32. Voy hacer un mod acerca de esto. Eyecandy stuff. I'm going to make a mod of interactive things for maps.
    1 point
  33. You are right, you respecting anyone is never gonna happen.
    1 point
  34. 1 point
×
×
  • Create New...