Hannibal_Barca
-
Posts
410 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by Hannibal_Barca
-
-
Those outposts look to be quite formidable
Now we can rest assured that the sheep are protected
-
1
-
-
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
-
1
-
-
Would be nice if units in formation don't go after animals
Units outside of it do
-
3
-
-
1 minute ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
yikes
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
-
1
-
-
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
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, woodpecker said:
I am wondering if there is some way to auto generate a concept like this with options of different map sizes and number of players like the maps in the game.
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.
-
21 hours ago, HMS-Surprise said:
so make me mod then
Wrong attitude and incorrect form of application
21 hours ago, elexis said:needs questioning
rigorous questioning = why do you want to become a mod
From that question all the other sanity-related questions are derived.
21 hours ago, elexis said:like to invite new moderators too, but it's hard to find someone who is trolling rarely and actually helping.
At least the current team is a bunch of angels
21 hours ago, elexis said:he does something that he should have punished others for.
This is a good idea - do something bad and then ban others because of it
On 6/30/2018 at 2:26 PM, coworotel said:Hi, today I learned a new strategy to get points without winning: user GVIT was losing the game, then he just kicked me. I asked him to create another match and resign but he just kicked me again.
By the way, you don't get points by defeating an offline player.
-
2 hours ago, coworotel said:
@Hannibal_Barca how much time does it consume? Does it require a fixed schedule or is this flexible?
It (assuming you mean moderatorship) requires you being active almost every day for a few hours - this means being available and not afking
-
2
-
-
23 hours ago, (-_-) said:
And the lack of moderators doesnt help. Currently there are just 3(?) moderators who logs in and moderate the lobby on a daily basis.
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.
-
2
-
-
@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
-
1
-
-
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
-
On 5/22/2018 at 7:50 PM, Servo said:
Also hope @Hannibal_Barca will allow me to have another account so I and my nephew could play with each other on the same house
Clear this with @user1 please
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, The Undying Nephalim said:
3. Is there a way for a unit to deal damage on death? My current solution is to spawn an invisible unit with a damaging aura on death... but then there's no way to make the invisible unit with the aura disappear after X amount of time, not that I can figure out anyway
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
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, fatherbushido said:
Patches commited between April 1st and April 20th 2017 for a commit freeze July 16th 2017.
That's what I meant by last-minute, yes
1 hour ago, Alexandermb said:And maybe reduce the duration of heroes by reducing their life, they are like tanks with that HP and breaks immersion
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
16 minutes ago, Servo said:This would discourage the annoying towering of enemies especially that maps are too small.
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.
-
2
-
-
24 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:
Tell me how works, basically Pikemen only works to kill melee Cave, Mêlée cave don't work for nothing if they are spam, skirmishes can deal with all except defenses.
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
50 minutes ago, elexis said:I don't really think that skirmishers + spearmen are the only choice in alpha 22
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.
-
10 hours ago, elexis said:
I'm not sure if this actually fixes or minimizes the problem, because if a unit is OP, then it is stronger in the same numbers. So it is also already in effect before the cost become apparent.
There is the problem that some units can be in comparison much more better or economic and there is the second problem that massed units can become invincible at some point. That's mostly Lanchesters Law, no?
skirmisher spam + melee as fodder sounds good, no? Add the counters where missing and it should work out in theory. It does in sc2 and aoe2, doesn't it?
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
-
2
-
-
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
QuoteFirst unit cost: 25F 50W 25M
91st unit cost: 39F 78W 39M
- +1% per unit
QuoteFirst unit cost: 25F 50W 25M
91st unit cost: 61F 122W 61M
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
-
3
-
2
-
Can we agree on this?
in Gameplay Discussion
Posted
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.