chrstgtr

This. Everything that OP talked about in his last post isn't about clicks. The vision says 0AD shouldn't be "the most clicks wins." I don't think anyone reasonable wants that (see any thread on sniping). Players are limited in the number of their clicks in early game because they simply do not have a robust enough economy to do more than a few things. And, in the grand scheme of things, 0AD isn't a "the most clicks wins" type of game compared to other games within RTS and other genres. Again, if the game is moving too fast for anyone, I suggest to simply change the game speed to .75x speed or something lower. Changing the the actual train times messes with the underlying balance of the game and no one has put forward an argument on why that should change or how it would avoid a24's problems.

I’m not listing everything out because everything you’re saying has already been considered. Look at the old threads. The player base simply rejected it. I don’t understand why you’re trying to retread this four alphas later You say teams should just come up with better strategies to avoid losing their full armies. Guess what, they did. It led to players avoiding battles and trying to only engage in their bases surrounded around their defenses. It led to a complete turtle fest that, again, players rejected. This is the first post where you’ve complained about multitasking in early game. You actually previously made the exact opposite complaint and said the problem was in late game with houses. But guess what, users already had thoughts about this last time too. They said slow train times made early game particularly boring because not much happens in early game—there are fewer units, buildings, eco decisions, fights, and other things to do, so players can actually have more time than they need early on. We see this in MP games where casual conversation is common in early games and then slowly disappears as more units, buildings, fights, and decisions present themselves in later game. It is very clear that a24 was simply a bad alpha. User complained. Then they left. Game hasn’t recovered. If you really want a slower paced game you can change game speed (something I’ve never seen done in a MP game but I have seen 2x speed on several occasions).

There’s no need for speculation or a revisionist history on why slower train times failed in a24. Comments were very clear that the player base doesn’t like a slower paced game. Users also noted that slower train times were extremely unforgiving. You couldn’t recover if lost one big fight since you couldn’t rebuild your population quickly enough to defend against an invading army.

Longer train times was implemented in a24. It was widely disliked so it was reversed.

Is Pyrenees mountains a skirmish map? That one is fun. Otherwise none are really played.

If hero changes are made to discourage luring then these don’t make sense. First one makes luring worse. Second one make luring easier. Second one will also have knock on effects of making it harder to ever kill heroes. I would just do the first and adjust to appropriate level. On this, I also like your idea from the other night where hero would be a non preferred unit and attacking units would refocus on preferred classes when in range. This changes the idea of ministers from being an eco unit that has some fighting ability to just being another fighting unit. That’s fine but it’s a pretty big shift in the unit’s intended purpose (I would personally go the other way and make them more like movable Kush pyramids but whatever). with that said, some thoughts on the changes… P1: This change makes no sense to me. It just makes the minister suicide rush stronger (it’s already strong). This doesn’t change how you’ll play with ministers or how many ministers you’ll make sine can’t be trained in p1. If you want to give ministers this buff just give it in p2. P2: so a total speed of 19 m/s? That seems really fast/OP. It would be quicker than every(?) other unit. At this point, you’re basically just making the minister a faster and stronger version of fanatics that’ll be able to take down buildings easily in p3. P3: fine but see above re speed. I generally like the idea of having quick moving units that can quickly kill buildings but others may disagree. I also think this idea would be better served by just creating a different unit that does these things instead of changes the Han unit from an anti unit raider to becoming an anti building raider (ie, why shouldn’t there be an anti unit raider in p3?). I can see pluses and minuses with these. They just need to be tested.

A lot of the prettiest maps cause lag. Bottlenecks aren't popular, so a map like mainland gives free range of movement. Same reason why Continent is the most popular water map

Every post ever from you

Statements like the one you quoted above are also just not true. 0AD's representation of civs isn't a "snapshot." For example, Ptol is in no way a "snapshot. Ptol's heroes are its founder (305-282 BC), a middle ruler (221-204 BC), and its final ruler (51-30 BC). That is not a snapshot--it's literally its entire existence. Compare this to the Roman heroes who lived after the first ptol hero and way before the last ptol hero. The heroes for Gauls spans an even wider period. The rules and historical features are applied in an entirely inconsistent manner.

It is the Punic Wars period. I think it's a silly restriction that leaves out the most popular Roman figures. But here we are.

I see where @roscany is coming from but don't fully agree. It's the reason why I think this is a good candidate for com mod testing.

It's not a full campaign mode. It lacks a lot of hallmarks of a classic campaign mode too. It was only a side project for one of the devs. "Competitive" doesn't mean SP. Most MP games aren't "competitive." There just isn't anything to suggest the long-term SP audience is larger than the MP audience. I don't know how long you've been playing. But the AI for 0AD is really dumb. It literally doesn't know how to use all the buildings. It attacks the closest/building and then follows it until it kills it. There are literally videos online where players exploit how dumb AI is to win 1v7 while only making women. That isn't an AI that can retain many long-term SPs because once you get decent at the game it very quickly becomes too easy and boring. You, again, have absolutely zero basis for this. There are literally hundreds of thousands of downloads/installs. Yet the observable user count doesn't go up. That means most users only for an extremely short period of time. So short that most users cannot possibly learn all the features that exist. I do not understand how you can possibly think adding more features will retain more users when the typical user hasn't discovered most of what already exists. To them there are no "old features." Everyone wants a game where it's mechanics work together.

Something has to be done about sniping, and I think something like this should be integrated into vanilla. This seems like a good thing to test in the community mod. There was a thread a while back where we discuss different possible area attack options--what I think you are describing is how I would probably prefer it.

I'm just talking about what the user base most likely looks like. When you have hundred of thousands of new installs/downloads and virtually no observable user growth then you have a retention problem. That is obvious. With how many downloads/installs we have, I think it is pretty likely that most new players play the game for an extremely short period of time (because it is too difficult--learning curve that a better tutorial could help with) or never play it at all (because there isn't a campaign mode--more on that later). It's often said that the SP community is larger. But there is virtually no evidence to support that. The inverse is largely true too. It's been said many times, but the SP experience needs to improve if we want the user base to grow. Some of those SPs will then convert to MP, which will cause the MP base to grow too. I think a better AI and campaign mode are the obvious ways to improve the SP experience. A dumb AI means that most players will eventually get bored by the game because it is too easy. I don't think I need to explain why a campaign mode is needed. One thing that is almost certain is that the retention problem will not be fixed by new features. New players are much more likely to be initially overwhelmed than wanting for a new spy functionality (or whatever).