Dizaka

Weird. Both points are valid. The final decision on how capturing mechanic works I guess would be on Stan's hands as he's the "producer" @Stan`. I think it would be interesting to have the "old Maury Siege Ram" applied to all siege (e.g., romans can build elephants from captured stables) Merc units should be "hirable" if buildings that produce mercs are captured. However, I do not see a reason for a Maury CC captured building Macedonian mercs, etc. Mace mercs cannot even be built from the CC.

I've had this reaction for the merc camps for carthage, etc (You can train carthage mercs as any civ with captured camps). This seems like a handicap though, what if you capture a CC and your CC gets captured?

I'm not completely sure. Maybe a taking a phone number but using a 1-way hash on it? This way it isn't "used" but it is fairly unique.

I have, basically, infinite accounts due to forwarding certain domains to my a primary email address. Have tons of accounts such as amazon@???.com, target@???.com, orangebank@???.com ... etc. Not really sure emails are unique.

When Macedonians capture CCs they can train merc skrim cav from the captured CC's instead of spear cav. This may apply to Romans who also have spear cav from CC. Also, just noticed you can train cretan merc archers.

Verified.

There's hope! This is a cool and amazing idea that is way outside the box and adds uniqueness to formations outside of battle tactics. Cut "10 wood" with 2-4 units each, can convert to a siege weapon (2-4 units per 1 ram). If in fighting / non siege formation you are carrying the 10 wood and get an encumbrance debonus. If in siege formation you are weak vs ranged people but strong vs buildings. What if what if the formation component could be a p1 until later type of sieging. There's a clear issue in late and early game with not enough siege weapons to mow through armies. If you could change units between sieging and regular fighting that'd be interesting (and could possibly return uselessness of walls, etc [not sure if walls/palisades changed since a25?]), especially using the formation mechanic. In "siege formation" you could be strong vs ranged weapons and weak vs slash/spear, etc. If sieging gets upgraded to a regular RAM it can't be downgraded to fighting units. This could be the "uniqueness" for ram-only civs and Mace/Rome/Seleucids who are "all siege" civs.

Looks like a p1 ram. Would be cooler if Mace had a p1 siege shop that produces that ;P.

Updating post slowly as I get screenshots done. Nice experience in learning MAC shortcuts/interface.

Replay.zipThe 2nd screenshot was with boongui on Linux. It shows the more detailed minimap that I've know from 0ad. Maybe it is the difference between normal and boongui minimap? Ok, I'm going to rerun test games (replays, same replay) and do screenshots on: M1 MAC, with boonGUI: Using a plugged in monitor Using their super duper 120hz display panel M1 MAC, without boonGUI Using the same plugged in monitor Using their super duper 120hz display panel Reg. MAC, with boonGUI: Using a plugged in monitor Using their super duper 120hz display panel Reg. MAC, without boonGUI Using the same plugged in monitor Using their super duper 120hz display panel Linux, with boonGUI: Using the same plugged in monitor Linux, without boonGUI: Using the same plugged in monitor Hmmmm, if the minimaps are different between MAC vs Linux/Windows it explains why I've been able to play without sounds and people on MAC didn't understand how it's possible ...

I'll try making a replay with similar conditions. It was me joining a multiplayer game. I counted the players and it seems like it was a resigned player in the screenshot of the minimap. However, I do not think buildings of resigned players show up as white squares but could be wrong. So it looks like when a player resigns the buildings are white. Didn't particularly notice it. Anyway, minimap on mac vs windows/linux is crowded. The icons are way bigger on MAC than on Windows/Linux. On MAC it is difficult to make out fine details. I'm not completely sure why this is and it looks like it was there like that before M1.

I have never played 0ad on mac previously. First time testing on a mac. I installed the old version and have not receive a MSAA error with full graphics/everything enabled. I believe it is just M1 related. The minimap seems crowded on old version for mac. However, I do not see in single player white buildings on the mini map. You know, I'm realizing maybe the white building foundations were a resigned player. Will test this later tonight.

I ran this command after dragging the app (didn't see this msg). It worked afterwards. Issue 1: Warning: MSAA not supported. Issue1.zip Issue 2: Relative to Windows/Linux, the mini map is crowded. Note: White is unbuilt buildings. I've never seen that on Windows/Linux (Edit: foundations only, no % built). Multiplayer replays seem to work. So do multiplayer games. Singleplayer replays seem to work. So do singleplayer games.

Personally, I like the "balancing discussion" forum. It opens up different perspectives and points of views of how things can be done. Clearly, there's no right way to do things and not many wrong ways to do things. However, as some noted in this thread, there should be a "design document." This document, could basically, serve as the intended direction and to focus discussions. With the balancing, and other forums, the document could change as need be. As much as a "design document" should exist, I think there should be a plethora more of sub forums that go under balancing or there should be a way to tag topics based on major ones (e.g., civ differentiation, team bonuses, mercenaries, champions, spear cav). Maybe specific "design sub-documents" could be created and updated on github that are not a "design document" but implementation ideas that can be added to the "design document" should there be sufficient time to include them. I love that 0ad is basically a living game. In general, I think @Stan` and the whole WFG Team have been doing a spectacular job with 0ad. I think the "balancing discussion" forum serves as an example of that people want 0ad to succeed.

Dogs give damage bonus to allies, if upgraded. Chariot skrimishers would be cool. Chariot archers would be cool too. Chariot spear cavalry would be interesting too. If you have 1 chariot of each type bunched up together you get a defensive bonus to allies (not self)? Could be a very micro-ranged bonus like roman dmg hero.

Can you accidentally select your own units by selecting captured enemy units? You can try making as many similar comparisons, but in the end, buildings != units. They function totally differently. I read the msg. Saw 2. If reading quickly in combat is blind clicking/reading then there's a lot of that happening in 0ad. It's a "fast paced" game when played online. Considering the game can be "fast paced" resulting in a lot of "blind reading" shouldn't it be more accommodating to the "fast paced" portion rather than imposing more warning messages to users? You can give extra warnings. It won't change the fact that there's a UI issue that impacts balance and can ruin games. Extra warnings are just that - extra warnings that do not fix the underlying issue. I don't want games to end b/c someone deleted all their houses. That ruins my time and the other player's time. That's not a win. That's a re-do game. When this happens 40 minutes into a game it can quickly turn return players away.

I'm not sure about you. However, when my army is fighting I'm going to click away as quickly as possible to return to the fighting. Additionally, as far as I remember msg said only 2 buildings. No more. That msg shouldn't exist and expected results should be given through keyboard / mouse commands. If the results are unexpected in an edge case and they result in losses/resignations it's something that should be re-thought. It's a balancing issue. Additionally, I'm not blaming anyone / anything. I don't care about wins/loses, etc. I have no problem resigning and starting a new game. However, resignations shouldn't happen because of UI issues. What I'm saying there's an issue and other players have experienced it. There's a clear difference if you play to win and care about this enough to rage versus playing by randomly dropping in to see how you fare and finding out an UI edge case forced a resignation.

I call double bull. My mental capabilities have more important tasks to do than simply remember to orient the game view. It is a balancing issue. There's expectations of how the user interface should work. Once those expectations are not met and they force resignations it is a balancing issue. Going from 200 pop limit to 0 in a matter of seconds with no adversarial action by your enemy forcing a self-inflicted loss is a balancing problem. It may not be a unit-stats balancing problem but it is a balancing issue. "Balance" has no definite bounds other than those that give others advantages that shouldn't exist. Double clicking captured enemy buildings should work differently than double clicking your own buildings. It shouldn't be that a player who played this game for a while comes back and needs to relearn "map orientation hacks" to make sure that the right buildings are selected. That's absurd. I've seen this happen to players such as Isam, Ricsand, DoctorOrgans, Wendy and other good players. It ruins games. I do not play to win but to have a challenge. If another player is handicapped for a UI issue it's a balancing problem because it handicaps them when it shouldn't. Some ideas: Double click on your own houses should select all houses in view (captured or original). Double clicking on enemy captured houses should select ONLY captured enemy houses in view. CTRL+Double Click could do this too. Triple click could select all, like #1 + #2 above. Double click on your own barracks should select all barracks in view (captured or original). Double click on enemy captured barracks should select ONLY captured enemy barracks. CTRL+Double Click could do this too. Triple click could select all, like #3 + #4 above.

I always seemed to think turtling implies booming to p3 and in p3 just going defensive until all upgrades. Haven't seen someone "turtle" p1/p2. Generally, it's just booming then turtling p3.

Carthage/Kushite mercs all-in in current alpha solve turtling. Also, mass spear cav if sufficient hunt vs civs like Iberians and Romans (neither of which have spear infantry in p1) can be devastating for enemy. Even more so with a Carthage merc cav rush. Basically, p1/2 rushing anyone who turtles or is known to turtle. If someone is known to turtle they are generally very vulnerable p1-p2 if you go "all in" on a rush which can become a way to permanently disable a enemy.

Could these three be combined?

I think it strongly depends on the map's per player population, size of map, and when players overall attack. If it's a small map, irrelevant of population, you're better off with Mace attacking early with mercenaries. If it's a large map and there's a lot of travel, and higher population, you're better off being Seleucids. If you're a player who attacks early, it's probably better to play Mace but not on large maps or with large per player populations - unless you win the RNG lottery for metal.

That's an alternative. Though the utility of the outpost is greatest in the early stages of the game. Resetting it every 2 minutes only makes it possible to go off 4 times in the first 8 or so minutes.

You can do this using shortcuts. If you have 10 barracks selected but only enough resources for 5 units generally it is grayed out. However, if you press the production shortcut, while all barracks are selected, 5 units will be queued up.

I *think* that in the 0-8 min mark if the outpost would make a sound (maybe different for cav/infantry) each time they are spotted it would make them have interesting utility for counter-raids. After 8 mins sounds could be muted?