wowgetoffyourcellphone
-
Posts
10.976 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
551
Posts posted by wowgetoffyourcellphone
-
-
I appreciate your enthusiasm. However, any mod that automates anything beyond the tools already explicitly provided in the game is a cheat mod. Every single game studio in the world would agree with me here. I'm not sure why Wildfire Games alone is expected to be different and allow cheat mods.
-
5
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, alre said:
shooting wall joints were canceled because they didn't have any positioning restriction and this made it possible to cram a lot of firepower in a small space. this is what I remember.
Indeed, this was the real reason and I think it's still valid. At least with my proposal you'd have to pay handsomely for the exploit so much so it'd might not be worth it.
-
1
-
-
Not sure it's "cluttering" anything when there's currently zero buttons there to begin with. Adding the word "random" artificially inflates your case.
-
I'm out. You're clearly arguing to argue.
-
3 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:
What’s the strategic use of that information 99.9% of the time after min 5? I would have about a 30% chance of learning that my enemy has farms around their CC. You said it changed from this originally, well it changed because it’s old form was useless too.
Dunno bro. I've used it in DE and saw the AI massing a giant invasion army or his citizens building a civic center expansion where I had not seen his units previously.
The relative costs can also be adjusted so that it's more attractive.
-
On 06/03/2025 at 11:20 AM, Obskiuras said:
I think we should strengthen walls and palisades, in the game it´s very easy to shoot then down and that doesn´t feel realistic. Also, when soldiers (archer, sliger, javelin) are garrisoned on walls they sould have more range attack, and of course, the tower of the walls must be able to fire.
what do you think @chrstgtr?
I'd really like it if individual (non-shooting) wall joints (we call them towers currently) could be individually upgradeable to shooting towers.
-
2
-
-
This is surely a bug, but maybe we can just call it a feature. lol
-
2
-
-
Great post. I could see the Sasanids going into either base game Part 2 or M_A.D.
-
3
-
-
On 06/03/2025 at 11:02 PM, chrstgtr said:
Spies needs a total rework. If it's most useful case is to find a lone fishing boat in the corner of the map after the game is all but officially over then it is a feature that shouldn't exist.
IMHO, a tech can be niche and only "useful" in maybe 10% of games and we could still include it, but obviously if only <1% of players ever use it, then that's a big problem.
Why can't we do what I suggest (extend the effect to all units) for a release cycle and see if it's an improvement. If it's not enough to be marginally useful, then we can retool it.
We could also do something like the tech is auto-researched the moment you train a Hero (easy to implement) as an additional bene to training a hero.
-
One of the reasons we should expand the Spy feature to include all non-hero units (not just land traders-a silly nerf).
-
IMHO, adding some kind of mechanic just to balance champ cav is too much. Perhaps Caltrops can be a tech that adds an attack bonus vs. Cavalry for infantrymen.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Grautvornix said:
What I would suggest, however, is to show if a ship has a payload or not (like a garrisoned building). Identifying which ships to select from the fleet in oder to land an army is sometimes quite time consuming and error-prone.
Indeed, I'd like to add garrison flags for ships.
-
2
-
1
-
-
Unlock_females (at houses) stands at 10%, lol
-
2
-
-
7 minutes ago, ShadowOfHassen said:
Do you mean the random maps? I don't play those -- I guess I should, though. I like the handcrafted maps.
That's what I mean, there are more Naval skirmish maps than what you mentioned.
-
I think number of items is a fine enough improvement, but length of time is better if achievable. If not, I'm perfectly happy with the incremental improvement. Good job.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, ShadowOfHassen said:
One request I have is could we have some more naval maps or maybe some AI changes? The only kind of sea map is Barciana and still the AI just decades to hoof it over land to attack me. i'd love to play Athenian navy and go sink Persian ships but I can't find a map to do it.
Skirmish maps?
-
6 hours ago, Arup said:
I disagree with this proposal. Village phase is supposed to be the "peaceful" time when you can focus on eco for the next phase.
In a 4-phase game (like my mod), I'd agree. However, the base game of 0 A.D. focuses on creating action as soon as possible. Scout Ships are super weak (or can be made to be more so).
-
4 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:
I don't think the techs are very complicated, but if players don't get a lot of the techs and don't get value out of the techs compared to just making additional ships, they should be streamlined.
I'll mention that in my first draft the techs were a lot more impactful. ;*
-
11 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:
Honestly, all navy is going to be disliked until pathing works better. It is just too clunky right now.
I would very much like to reduce warship size by 25%, which I believe would reduce collisions and weird overlapping noticeably (but of course not eliminate it, that requires more pathfinding work).
-
1
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, Arup said:
This is ridiculous: HOW DOES GARRISON NOT AFFECT THE SHIP AT ALL?
I'd say almost 100% of games of 0 A.D.'s type have no garrison effects for ships.
6 hours ago, Arup said:How is the speed of a ship manned by 30 crew the same speed
Because it's not a "crew." The ship already comes with a crew. The garrisoned are passengers, not rowers.
6 hours ago, Arup said:I haven't a single idea how the balancing thought the new naval was a good idea. Ram Ships are def OP broken, any civ that doesn't have either fire ship or ram ship is inherently in a worse position than an enemy who does have them
This is possibly a concern, but we were proactive in mitigating this with the tech tree. See: Flaming Projectiles for those civs without Fire Ships or Siege Ships. There was some thought put into this, despite the implications in this thread. It's also funny that you say melee ships are OP when another much better player is saying arrow ships are OP.
7 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:You’re probably right. I just haven’t seen it yet and consequently forgot.
I'd be down for moving Siege Ships to Town Phase.
So, my generic proposal would be:
Phase 1
-
Fishing Boat
- Purse Seine
- Salt Curing
- Merchant Ship
-
Scout Ship
- Lookouts
- Shipwrights
Phase 2
- Arrow Ship
- Melee Ship
- Siege Ship
Phase 3
- Arrow Ship Tech
- Melee Ship Tech
- Siege Ship Tech
-
Fishing Boat
-
3 hours ago, chrstgtr said:
There are too many techs that no one researches. The techs are overly costly and complicated
Tangentially related:
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, chrstgtr said:
Balance is bad. There are a bunch of ship types but players basically only make arrow ships. This says balance is off and/or there are too many ship types. We should try to balance the ships or just get rid of some types.
Well, let's try the former before the latter.
2 hours ago, chrstgtr said:Land-water balance is off too. Ships die quickly to land units, which means ships are only useful to patrol the water.
Yeah, we can rebalance this with health/armor/bonuses.
2 hours ago, chrstgtr said:There are too many techs that no one researches. The techs are overly costly and complicated. The fact that ships are basically only used to deny fishing underscores how the tech tree way over complicates this.
I agree. I'd like to redo the tech tree. Also, there's a problem with presentation of the techs where in other games the tech that affects a specific unit is placed right below that unit. In 0 A.D. this is not possible. Please, someone code this. Asked for it for 10 years.
2 hours ago, chrstgtr said:We lost the siege ship, which could destroy buildings from sea. This is an aspect that has just gone missing. Again, another element where navy is inferior to land units
Huh? What's this?
AFAIK, every civ that had a siege ship before still has a siege ship.
2 hours ago, chrstgtr said:Ships are too expensive
Possibly.
2 hours ago, chrstgtr said:Scout ships are useless against other ships. They should be in p1 or not exist. Giving an option to rush fishing in p1 seems like better gameplay anyways. Having a system where rushing can backfire against a phased opponent also seems like better design.
My original design for this had Scout Ships available in P1. I forget why that was changed. But Scout Ships aren't supposed to be effective against other warships, at least. It's a scout ship. But perhaps it should have an attack bonus vs. civvie ships.
-
Ima be honest whichall.
Old system ain't coming back, lol.
So, focus on making the new system better. Thanks @chrstgtr for his analysis and suggestions (I have quibbles, but w/e).
Any new overhauled system is gonna be trash in the first iteration (see: capture/attack balance). This alpha changed a lot of things. Keep playing and give suggestions to improve the changes besides "changing it back." There are many valid reasons for the new changes that aren't invalidated by an awkward 1.0
-
1
-
-
I'm not understanding this one.
Units die too quickly: Melee units have too little armour
in Gameplay Discussion
Posted
Clutter, bro