Hannibal_Barca

I'll deduce that you weren't really paying attention neither to the posts nor to the actual game itself (of which you applied to become Gameplay Developer) Friendly fire is disabled in 0 A.D.

Those outposts look to be quite formidable Now we can rest assured that the sheep are protected

Units can still be unloaded unto the top of the cliffs via boats, players will have to watch out for a possible attack that they can't prevent due to not being able to train ships on that side Weird I like it

Would be nice if units in formation don't go after animals Units outside of it do

Yeah I had to make you sound like an evil monstrosity to suit my purposes But I'm not going to vote opposite, not the best solution either. I know I'm not helpful, this place is one of the rare 0ad places where I can be a pest. Both of you got a point but middle ground is needed IMO

Poll choices are very biased and clearly want you to choose the view supported by the poster or be ridiculed as ignorant and stupid. And elexis has a point. As far as colonists are concerned, dangerous animals are enemies. So if you don't want units to go out of formation to kill them, the obvious solution is not to put units in formation

With the new release you can load map terrain from scenario files Then you can paint it and add entities randomly But this map looks simple enough to be fully generated by a random map script

Theoretically as lobby moderators we have no right, nor any intention to moderate in-game chat. While users are subject to our rules while in the multiplayer lobby, in-game the host is all-powerful and reserves the right to do anything . The exceptions to the rule are rated games and rated games only. (Game names are moderated as they appear in the lobby game list) Any in-game law enforcement is to come from persons other than lobby moderators, perhaps some Team Members would like to oversee complete chat moderation.

Wrong attitude and incorrect form of application rigorous questioning = why do you want to become a mod From that question all the other sanity-related questions are derived. At least the current team is a bunch of angels This is a good idea - do something bad and then ban others because of it By the way, you don't get points by defeating an offline player.

It (assuming you mean moderatorship) requires you being active almost every day for a few hours - this means being available and not afking

You or any other potential candidate may apply to the proper authorities who might - after rigourous questioning - accept your application and appoint you for a designated test period after which you could be elevated to the permanent* status of Lobby Moderator. We are indeed short-staffed at the moment and could use a helping hand. * Privileges may be revoked if deemed necessary.

@user1 has dealt with this issue so far, I will not intervene If you are telling the truth, we convey our sincere apologies. If you are not being wholly sincere, please state so and help clear this situation up

We don't have secondary attack and only a ram is weird and causes overlapping in roles That's partially what I meant

Siege towers were meant to take walls They can't. Hence the fantasy stuff They take a long time to train and aren't cheap either Never heard of ramming attack, that sounds as novel as shooting out the back wall Historically, catapults and bolt-shooters could be mounted on these engines to batter enemy walls and the units on them

Kushites had catapults in DE (I think all civs have them there) but I removed them due to the kush unit roster being too vast already And as for siege towers all civs have some kind of counter Removing attack ability while moving would be a great way to set them aside for a whole alpha, allowing them to win the title of Most Useless Unit of the Year. I'm glad someone is interested in their well-being at least. Also if you block their path with a few units they will get slowed, unless of course you just like to order units to trail behind as an honour guard Catapult spam seems a half-viable option this release so it should be ok As @elexis wanted to mention in the release announcement (but later took it out), Kushites would like to prove that there is Strength in Diversity. Nevertheless they shouldn't be given all the candy or some might cry.

I'm a bit busy in current and coming days so I don't expect I'll look into this The key to a civilization is uniqueness and aesthetics Unique techs and units would be needed, with exotic-looking structures to top But as I said, I don't have time for this

Clear this with @user1 please

Give the invisible unit a large damage attack and also a negative health regen so high it lasts only for 1s (acid splash) Or 2s or whatever But this is in for A23 Destruction Damage One of the new features that targets 0 A.D. (but also mods and other RTS that once might use the Pyrogenesis engine) is the ability of units to deal damage to surrounding enemies when they are destroyed. The effect is demonstrated by Fireships that can and will sink enemy ships if not taken care by the enemy combatant.

Differentiation of unit/formation rear and flank from front isn't in yet although some have come up with rudimentary patches While the pikeman as it is might be a little incorrect, making cavalry counter/do well against pikes seems not an option Ranged units do need a rework though

That's what I meant by last-minute, yes I've long clamoured for a one chance at same hero thing, it's needed Limiting pop/phase is not really the right solution.. not justified and not fun Let players calculate when to phase up to build strategic stuff It's a strategy that should always be viable

I don't necessarily disagree with the way 0 A.D. is going, I feel that in Alpha 22 the balance was only disrupted because of the last-minute accuracy patch which severely impacted skirmisher effectiveness. While no real candidate has as yet surfaced in Alpha 23, it remains to be seen. But one may be certain that cavalry will not be OP, archers will be more flexible, etc Also some OP heroes were rebalanced, hopefully the rest of the hero aura revision patch will be in for A24. This is all thanks to @temple, @Feldfeld, @(-_-), @elexis and several others who have relentlessly tested and patched. Cavalry roles are more clear now, with spear cavalry taking the lead and decisively defeating other cavalry types. Skirmisher cavalry will be more focused on raids and support, while sword cavalry are now the fastest and will likewise carry out raids, down siege and perform well vs. slingers. Finally fixed, bolts are now useable - alongside with catapults that promise lethal damage against ranged spams. Champion train time has been reduced to more palatable levels, with costs kept as they were to guard against overuse. While some will undoubtedly find faults and others will name it lacking in strategy, we may hope that this release will have the qualities of its namesake and not be such a "failure" as its predecessor. The best course is still for the team to import successful features from mods, for modders to experience, visualize and realize - and the other mods to kick, ban and mute miscreants from the lobby. Those lookers-on who merely type ideas on the forum but don't realize them should start showing that they can lend a helping hand in furthering the project. In the future, it would definitely be nice to have new unique technologies for every civilization, with pair technologies where players must decide on a course. Everyone is welcome to input ideas and proposals. Grander visions and more complicated features must wait. I agree that units should have designated roles but not necessarily that we need to jump on the hard counter system and do fast and brutal computing in-game to spam what and when. As a closing statement, I think that this recent conversation has gone off-topic.

Actually you didn't manage to get even one of those right Archers beat slingers which beat slingers which beat skirmishers which beat archers for some reason Pikemen tank it all but take ages to get anywhere, sword cavalry seem to do well vs. slingers which beat skirmisher cav Spear cavalry down other cavalry quite efficiently, skirmisher cavalry are seemingly weak and only a meagre support Problem is that there is not that big a difference between beating and getting beaten. So you just have to make up for it by spamming harder You are absolutely right!! Here are some other strategies -siege tower stack -banned -archer/skirm cav spam (thankfully this got all cav banned) -skirmishers+pikes -skirmishers only -skirmishers+swords -slinger spam I speak seeing the values of A23, no point talking about the past.

You do not create a counter system to balance OP units, you balance them all then make sure each got their role. You're right in stating that this fix merely minimizes the problem, I agree with that. But in the end the spamming of a unit doesn't necessarily mean that it in itself is OP, just that it is the most efficient in the task designated by the player. Why would skirmishers + fodder be good? Why reduce the Melee class to something inferior and just trained to get as many missiles stuck into them as possible? Sure, a counter could be invented against it, but it's already flawed at the core principle. But this isn't connected to the proposed feature, maximum that the skirmisher spam becomes harder to acquire and replentish

Anti-Spam Mechanic Suggestion For as long as I have been playing it, 0 A.D. has been having problems with balance. In each and every of the last 6 releases (or perhaps more) there has been 1 "op" unit. That unit got spammed, it's that simple. Some may argue that we need a perfect counter system, then we don't need such a limitation as the following proposed feature. But then again, even if a counter system is implemented, I think that it is more effective in team games for each player to specialize a certain unit, then help out accordingly. It has happened in other games with perfect counter systems. It's very good from teamwork point of view but in ancient times armies weren't composed of 2 types of units. Alpha 17: Sword cavalry op, spam them and down opponent's cc with a rush Alpha 18-19: Hazy for me, I myself spammed archer champions and downed buildings, easily outranging them. Alpha 20-21: Champion rush and later spam. Alpha 21: Slinger spam. Alpha 22: Cavalry skirmisher/archer spam. No cav games: skirmisher spam + melee as fodder Summary: meh Proposal: Each unit increases cost of same unit type by 0.5/1%. This stackable "aura" would make such spams not as profitable and would incite some players to search for other, yet just as efficient army compositions featuring several unit types. As a side effect, this feature makes larger batch trains even more attractive, since they are trained at the cost of next unit only, not all those after. Example: +0.5% per unit +1% per unit Why did I choose 90 units? In Alpha 22 after players banned cavalry they started spamming skirmishers, it became common to see such armies marching about. Why this kind of anti-spam mechanic? It's easy to explain this 1%, the area is drained of possible soldiers, equipment is needed etc. Overdemand, this is the word under which 0 A.D. takes a step towards a more balanced future. In this post I am not siding with nor necessarily supporting other gameplay suggestions, I feel that this isn't a big overhaul. Some will say that this isn't enough, others will resent the passing of age-old strategies. From battalions to slaves and nomads, 0 A.D. has a vast choice of future paths, each leading to something different, something unique. The team is careful, taking steps slowly - sometimes perhaps to the detriment of progress - but they are I'm sure familiar with the problem the game faces and they wish the best for it. I'm not saying that we should throw all the gameplay suggestions away, just that they all encompass several changes that drag a train of other modifications with them and the team might not want to introduce them at least for now. Implementation: Ah, the step where all the enthusiastic developers say "meh" and go watch dog memes. It could be done with each unit class having a a stackable aura, but we know that global auras are problematic - especially when they come in big stacks. I'm not familiar with code so I wont say anything else but I hope it is possible to find a way. If you are still unmotivated, please click here Last one

You were banned by @user1 with the following reason: Don't make multiple accounts. @user1 I'd prefer if he'd settle the issue since he is the one who acted.