Dakara

I'm not a designer... dozens of ideas could exist... Either change the color of the sword and shield, bow, etc.? Or highlight it with that color. It's up to you to have fun with what seems best to you.

Thanks Atrik for these interesting charts, for Kush is it possible for you to tell us the proportion of mercenary spam for these top evenings? I'm curious Ptol are not bad yes , they have a different way to play them, but why they are "slow"?

Yes and no, It can give new players bad shackles with advice that is situational. Who will change these tips when the balance team decides to remake pikemen into tank unit? It is better for the player to discover his own strengths and weaknesses by instinct (reading statistics) and experience. ---- To determine the opponent's improvement progress and avoid memes (which are only identifiable by experienced players), we could consider a system of colors. stacked? Or a color system, for example, bronze, silver, and gold (this easily resonates with people). Tech 0: Grayed Tech 1: Bronze Tech 2: Silver Tech 3: Gold Tech 4 (Iberian and Maurya): Diamond To satisfy everyone, we have two display options accessible via a button: the arcade button with the bare minimum of vital information and the detailed button with the full list (stats and future idea like counter kill etc) example just for bronze color, but keep the design of 0AD of course

market is fixable ? and how

Yes but if another player do the first part of trade, you are the second player and you need use the market...

are we sure it normal ? its depend the game , if the wood have a big value compare food.. if one player really need food and have too much wood.. what he has to do finally? how he is supposed to know its cheat or no cheat

Sorry i didn't understand for rome. -- It devalues action, risk-taking, and combat by creating a defensive bias in some players. Encouraging them to do nothing with their units. Creating micro with barracks that have a 10-unit capacity is boring. Ships were changed for that reason. To me, a unit that levels up outside of combat hasn’t proven anything. The other trained units have already received military training; otherwise, they wouldn’t be recruited. Persians and allies have an advantage because their barracks are cheaper, so more people can level up. To avoid ruining RTS gameplay, passive experience should be like this: • It is slow, very restricted (e.g., limited to a % of the maximum rank). Currently, I personally have no idea how long it takes for a unit to level up. I do it randomly. • It has a clear cost (e.g., each minute of training costs resources). That’s indirectly the case due to the lack of resource gathering—except for mercenaries? Might as well gather resources, it seems way more useful. It’s borderline slightly useful for cavalry. • It depends on active investment (e.g., having an officer or a special technology). Right now it’s passive and only in certain buildings. I find this feature has zero hype. Some random ideas if you dont' want can't pick ressource : -Troop Donation to Allies -Units that remain stationary for an extended period gain a 50% boost to their sight -Create an active defense investment system instead of just waiting. *Assignment via a technology unlocked at the fort that enables automatic repair of defensive buildings (walls, towers, forts). This unlocks an “auto-repair” button. When a unit is inactive and within 100 meters of a defensive building, it will autonomously repair it. *Trap placement: traps that deal damage or slow enemies. *Assign units to defensive buildings, which increases their armor/resistance making them better defended and more durable.

the feature of experience is pretty annoying, it ok when it a little feature but if it become everywhere and everytime is annoying. Now Rome can have free champ for example if you do annoying micro with barack you have free mercenary unit so? idle unit = bad , don't make a prize for bad action

I find that having to go through special buildings to create heroes is quite annoying in most cases. It unnecessarily adds weight to the gameplay. That said, for some civilizations like Sparta, it makes sense and I find it cool — it reinforces the roleplay aspect and cultural identity. However, this system should definitely not be generalized to all civilizations. Especially since the construction costs are not the same between civilizations, which makes everything even less balanced. Persians also handle it well with the little resource gadget. With Sparta, it feels like unlocking the grail with some super bonuses… although that should be put into perspective in the end. The Fortress is an average solution. But at least it's “okay”; however, it's worth noting that it’s a slight indirect nerf to the offensive play of those civilizations. Or we could imagine choosing the hero at Age 3 and he pops up for free once the Age is researched? If you want to make a second one when the first is dead (everyone Fortress and CC for sélucide op?)

after the reform they still have one unit with normal cost and normal rate of resource (the spear i guess)

He said yes

No need to read all the posts. Name and shame. btw electrical car can't fail to change the speed compare to manuel car. you understand the difference?

You are right, the beginner are the base of a game. they mainly have to play between beginner and for this they have to host game for beginner. Because when you are beginner your first goal is take fun, not win 100% game. But a training system would be a good thing, achieving objectives in 1-3 minutes on a personalized map with a score out of 10 or another rating system would allow the beginner to have a solid foundation.

Will 0AD build a professional army to defend its players?

do it = kill balance lol you know romans have free champ if melee unit upgrade level for example. I don't see the issue of blueprint-modelled units Nothing prevent to have unique unit for each civ like fanatic, dog etc

The total freedom, for the best and the worse, like a wedding ♥

I was just trolling, of course you are right

Who cares about the events of the past when atrocities just as terrible, or even worse, are still happening in the 21st century? The real problem is not learning from history to prevent it from happening again. I don't make the difference between burning someone alive and killing them with a bomb while they sleep, when they are innocent it's the same atrocity

Annoying idea and nothing related to historic route

Idea number 453 : infantery and cav same stat except speed Make simple changes -> Standardize cavalry and infantry. Their only difference would be their gathering and repair capacity and move speed. This would be balanced by an additional food cost of about 60%. So now the only advantage of cavalry is speed. We remove all specific anti-cavalry counters, it a noob feature. The train time is same as infantery too. Later we can think about giving cavalry units as already exist for the Persians with the axe. cav cityzen example : 50 food 50 wood / 50 HP / 1/1/0 armor 16 pierce attack 1,5 speed / attack capture 2.5 / Move speed no change 80 food 50 wood / 50HP / 1/1/0 armor 16 pierce attack 1,5 speed / attack capture 2.5 / Move speed 16.8 champ cav example : 80 food 60 wood 80 metal /200 HP / 3/3/0 armor 16 hack attack 0.75 speed / attack capture 5 / Move speed no change 120 food 60 wood 80 metal /200 HP / 3/3/0 armor 16 hack attack 0.75 speed / attack capture 5 / Move speed 18 For civ good in cav we have a new tech : HP Cav +10% for a cost +10% cost food. Of course we delete the basic tech of life for all civ. Resume and strategy goal : Make cav a strategic choice and not the best op choice. You still have to produce more food for have a cavalry support Give to noob Attack capture is same as infantry, train time too. Of course they will melt ! but you can runnnnn with them, choose when you want to fight. Delete counter feature, your natural damage without counter or multiplier should be use at good target -> more snipe and move cav where you want to maximize your damage. Reduces classic tactical errors and make the game more noob friendly with this infantry buff. An all-cavalry army will always be stronger than an all-cavalry army, but not in a noisy fight, the units will be equal. There will be ways to differentiate gameplay, don't worry.

I don't see any problem for this thing actually. It is not about the game but players. It worse in a lot of other game. In 0AD people try to balance in most of the game, even matchmaking is full random ouf of ranked in a lot of RTS game. I'm just wondering about beginner and intermediate players. They don't have the knowledge to balance the games and smurfs can crush them easily. We must be careful with non-elite players; they are the solid base of the game and they keep the lobby alive, they are useful for balance btw. We could consider developing the user profile, for example with a multiplayer game counter. Of course, the player would have to be able to choose whether or not to display this information. I'm personally in favor of including a team ranking for the moment, but it's an alpha, so anything can be done. Maybe even through a mod.

Don't use it except if you have a plan or a good map for it. Plus if your opponent is low no cata civ maybe you can do some. About tower is nice in early but after it low efficiency and easy to capture , except if the tower are surround by building

a second group with ctrl + number for siege, and shift right click and make a way

45 meter around this heroe all cav have +2 armor (take less damage) in french translate it type +2 attack but it wrong

#74 - Increase the default capture regen of structures - 0ad-community-mod - Wildfire Games something is plan for the roman camp ? or structures 0.5 to 5 is enough?