hhyloc

For ram attacking infantry, how about we give it a slight damaging aura instead (unlockable tech?), this simulates the soldiers inside the ram retaliate against attackers, also with this aura the ram doesn't have to stop to attack enemy units and can still sort of push forward given enough time. This way we can silmulate the fact that ram can still be blocked by enemy but it can slowly bowl over opposition, but clearing the blocking enemy with your own units will be more effective though.

This is good news indeed, I don't use MacOSX personally but knowing more people can play 0 A.D. is always a good thing.

Last I remember, you can garrision one (and only one) unit inside an outpost and that outpost will be able to shoot arrow. So outpost can be a defensive structure too. (though a weak one)

WFG already have a finnacial report which they posted now and then for those who want to know the numbers, check the homepage and you should see it.

Like Lion.Kanzen said, game development doesn't work that way. You don't magically have a faster progres if you lump people together and stop the artists from creating new art asset for the game. Also, the game is in alpha, the stage where lots of feature will be added and then stablised later.

I agree with the notion that the free wall Iberian get at the start should be removed and replaced with something else. I think factions should be map independant in the sense that every one should start with the same condition and work their way up depend on the faction's specific features, in this case the Iberians is the exception becausw the faction start with prebuilt wall that no other factions have. My suggestion for replacement bonus are stronger and/or faster palisade wall for the Iberians and more wall-oriented techs so they can still be the defensive and anti-rush faction.

Hello kanetaka, glad I'm not the only one . 今は大学で 日本語を勉強していますから、ちょっと 日本語で話せるんです。 よかったら よろしくお願いします。

Hello Christo, welcome to the forums. The thing is it needs a specific "goal" to work first, as far as I'm aware WFG currently doesn't have any donation campaign, people still donate now and then. A progress bar is needed only when you're trying to raise enough fund in an ammount of time to accomplish some task.

Relevant thread: http://www.wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=18570

Nice to know that all the awesome developments are going underway, please keep up the good work.

Progress is being made AFAIK, give them some time.

I'm not the best player, but my guess would be your own skirmisher cavalry in compound with proper towers placement at resource gathering sites.

I believe this is a known issue and there're things being done to fix that. One possible change to balance to unit counter is that each unit type will be better differentiated, namely skirmishers will hit harder but have lower range and attack speed(?) while archers will be weaker but boast greater attack range, and I think this extend to cavalry as well. Counter will still exist I think but less promient.

Not sure if the corral is "rarely built". I myself always build them (if only to achieve the required number of buildings to advance) but most of the time I use them for a relatively safe and hassle-free food income besides farms.

Any East Asian around here? Look like I'm in the minority here, I'm from Vietnam, some of you may heard about it before.

If the Seleucid will be officially debuted in this version, I think going with a name related to the Seleucid would be a safe bet.

Hooray for the new release, I really appreaciate the work everyone put in here, especially the Spidermonkey upgrade is indeed a good news to all. Hope to see more improvement in the performance front in the future. Bring on the beer kegs! Let's raise a toast to Wildfire Games!

I think allow the Iberian hero to become invisible when traveling near forest, and an aura that extend his ability to nearby troop would make a good gameplay mechanic.

True, but then it's unsatisfying for the winning player, and then the summary table's result won't be accurate with the actual situation. This will hurt the multiplayer aspect badly, because there are people just playing for fun, but there are people playing for competitive thrill too, and to them leaderboard DO matter. Granted it's still early alpha, but that doesn't mean we should just neglect it, for an open source game under development a community is even more important.

I think you are going for realism too closely here. Sure in reality the victor has to choose between wipe out the opponent completely (more hassle) or negotie a truce that the defeated can follow. But from the player's perspective it's just a game, and it's indeed a game; The time saved here are the time that both the player saved from a prolonged match not the time saved for a real life army, nation, conqueror or whatever, unless this is applied to some kind of competitive multiplayer ladder, I don't see the point of full annilihation vs admit defeat in a normal, casual match. And even then in competitive matchs of most games I've seen one player will automatically resign if he deem the situation hopeless, prolonged the match unnessesarily by hiding your units around WILL be looked down on. From my personal exeperience, the Resign button in RTS is there to serve the purpose that the losing player can end the match quicker when he think there are no hope left, thus saving the hassle for both players, so they can leave and play a new match/do other things. And then we have this "Spy" tech that reveal enemy units for a scaleable price; these mechanics have existed long before and has proven to work effectively, I don't think we should change it and introduce unnessesary mechanisms.

Nice to hear that a big balance overhaul in underway.

But is it fun? Sure you may get some enjoyment out of it but what about the other player? I agree that "teaching" someone to be more aggreasive is good and all but there are more better ways to do that than draw out a match much longer than it's needed. As you described you prevented the opponent from building any dock, I assume that because you destroyed any foundation he has laid out before he got a chance to complete it, but it's then just a game of quick clicking, you try to find all his dock foundation and destroy it and him try to build up a dock and make ships. And it's a losing game for you anyway cause he has the all the resource and army. This comes back to what I said before, a frustrating and time-consuming experience for anyone on the receiving end.

I think a compromise would be best, if your force (all units with the ability to attack) get smaller than X number (or X "power"*) and you have no unit-producing building left, the game will count that as "hopeless" and begin the countdown. That way you can have no base at all but with large enough force you still have a slim chance. *power: rather vague, something like the total attack capability of all your units.

@jaimele Very nice, I really like your custom maps. :0

Well, realism is one thing but when it becoming tedious (like searching every single enemy unit on the map) it stops being fun and just frustrating. Maybe 0 A.D. is not about multiplayer point but people still play it for the multiplayer value and they have every rights to do so. If you have enough troop left you still have a chance for a comeback though that require your opponent to be slow to react, which is unlikely consider that he defeated you in the first place. You can order the women to repair things and try to build some troop to resist the much larger enemy but unless you managed to build a substantial force to actively resist him, you're just prolonging the inevitable. THAT can be but to others it's just frustrating to see the opponent stall the match like that. 0 A.D can't simulate strategy and tactics to the degree that it's 100% identical to real life. Let's abstract that down 800 Enemy soldiers and 200 own soldiers, it's not really a defeat if you still have a barrack and civ center somewhere. Now we assume that your base was destroyed, now from here many things can happen but it mostly generalize to: - You resist him for sometime but with superior force and functioning base, he eventually wipe you out. That doesn't taking better strategy in his part into account yet. - You somehow managed to sneak around and destroy his only base (he's unlikely to have 1 base) but then your force will certainly take casualties, which further seal the deal as his force return. What I'm trying to say is in a simulated environment it's very hard to enact a "comeback" or "victory against all odds" scenario, where a smaller and base-less force take down a larger force with superior tactics and manoeuvre; but that's is contradicting because he is the one that defeated you and took out your base in the first place, so it's only natural to believe that he was simply better in that match.