chrstgtr
-
Posts
1.220 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
24
Everything posted by chrstgtr
-
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).
-
It isn’t clear how many SPs there are or how long they play for. We do know that there are (at least) like 2K total players a day (split between SP and MP). But it isn’t clear how many of those players downloaded the game that day and are testing it out vs. how many of those players have been playing for multiple months. No matter how you look at it, though, there is a huge retention problem if there are 300K downloads and we only observe a steady 2K players or so (i.e., no real growth in user count). It also means that some portion of that 2K player count is probably a stream new users that come play for a short time before they leave and are replaced by another new user that will only play for a short time. We also see this constant stream of new players in the forums where a new user comes along makes a few posts for a week or two and then disappears (sometimes forever) Personally, I suspect there are about an equal number of long-term SP and MP users, which reflects what we see on the forum.
-
Sure. Also balance concerns. Just saying that I don’t think an auto upgrade for stone is going to make any one phase any faster, which kind of defeats the purpose of the bonus.
-
Sounds like it would be easy to forget about and wouldn’t drive gameplay. I would go bigger (eg, do it for metal and wood too but maybe that is too similar to Mace)
-
Units die too quickly: Melee units have too little armour
chrstgtr replied to Seleucids's topic in Gameplay Discussion
This doesn’t make sense. Again, this changes unit balance, which isn’t what’s being discussed. Just do something like +10% health across all units. Or make it an auto upgrade like it was before with phasing -
Units die too quickly: Melee units have too little armour
chrstgtr replied to Seleucids's topic in Gameplay Discussion
Agree. All the other stuff impact unit balance instead of actually address the underlying concern that all units die too fast. -
Units die too quickly: Melee units have too little armour
chrstgtr replied to Seleucids's topic in Gameplay Discussion
Personally, I think units die too fast and have died too fast since a24, which removed the auto health upgrades from phasing up. I think the obvious improvement is just an overall unit health buff. It makes battles last longer, which is more satisfying, and makes retreating a bit easier, which I agree is needed Also, agree with @real_tabasco_sauce re melee units needing a speed buff. Glad you’ve come around to this idea. This is more about melee/range balance, though. -
I said no such thing. I said some devs, like Nescio, eschewed player feedback and wrote patches that made little sense in the a24 era. I have no doubt this patch would've been pushed through by Nescio no matter what any player said for or against it. There's a pretty clear history of that happening all over a24. My point has always been that people that don't understand gameplay shouldn't be the ones designing the game.
-
Here comes @hyperion just disagreeing with anything I say again. Shocking. Nothing I said was untrue. As to the "reasons" given. Those reasons are: (1) turrets stats are bad--has nothing to do with whether they should shoot--and (2) turrets are walls, which clearly they are not. Even now, when people are trying to justify the removal of the attack function they do so by harkening back to a pre-a21 period when turrets could be closely placed together, which wasn't the case when the attack function was removed. You want to get rid of turrets attack function? Fine--I don't care. But pretending it was a masterstroke by Nescio is a lie. Defending basically anything done on the gameplay side of a24 is discrediting.
-
@wowgetoffyourcellphone @alre https://code.wildfiregames.com/D3706 https://code.wildfiregames.com/rP25135 Confirmed--turrets could attack until a24/a25 (can't tell on the date). Unsurprisingly, it was a Nescio written change. Little real reason is given to explain/justify the change, which wratii kind of hints at in the commit thread. Basically, the notion that turrets were OP and needed to have their attack removed is a fiction.
- 56 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- attack vs capture
- stats
- (and 2 more)
-
Turrets haven’t been OP since I started playing in a21. They’ve barely had a use case beyond garrison against rush (something iber is susceptible to) when you play iber. Nonetheless, I don’t care if they exist. But we should eliminate their existence if they’re just another segment to a wall. right now, turrets just seem like a bug where you garrison and nothing happens
-
@wowgetoffyourcellphone @alre this is the change you guys were talking about. The fix then was to have a min distance https://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/3811
-
I’m saying people who don’t understand how the game is played shouldn’t be given any weight in gameplay discussions. It’s really not a controversial position. For example, about once a month, a new player makes an account and says “rams are OP—my 100 archers can’t kill them! Please nerf rams!!!” One way to react would be to say this is a really common complaint so rams must be OP. Another way to react would be to say these are new players that don’t yet understand that you need melee units to kill rams. This second reaction also knows that if you make rams super susceptible to archers then rams will quickly become useless.
- 56 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- attack vs capture
- stats
- (and 2 more)
-
No. That change predated the complete stripping of arrows. Turrets could shoot arrows until a24 or a25. You both are describing a change that occurred before a21 (when I started playing). I think there was a spacing requirement or something installed that prevent people from spamming turrets (but I’m not really sure because I wasn’t around then and have only seen old forum posts on it)
-
I’m almost positive it was done under/by Nescio. He did many things that made absolutely no sense. It resulted in an absolutely awful alpha that drove off a large portion of the community and the game hasn’t recovered since then. When someone tried to give him input he would get mad and reject their suggestions. Then he would get madder when people didn’t like the product he put out. Good riddance It goes without saying, but you can’t properly design a game if you don’t understand it and you can’t truly understand it unless you play the game. The current iteration of devs are much better about listening to player feedback. But before it felt like many devs eschewed any input from actual players.
-
Yes, and that was ridiculous. Many posts on the forums should be ignored because they’re made by people who have absolutely no idea what they’re talking about.
-
I’m just pointing out how useless the tech you’re proposing is. Again, adding tech for the sake of having a “new feature” isn’t fun and doesn’t advance the game.
-
It’s random if there’s no reason it is an upgrade instead of a built in feature. The same way we could make defense towers buildings that do nothing until you click an upgrade tower to get arrows. Adding a bunch of buttons to do basic things doesn’t make the game more fun. And, yes, that is cluttering the tech tree even if there is nothing already there. It creates a mental load where one shouldn’t exist.
-
Or just make them automatically shoot like they used to. No need to clutter the screen with random upgrade buttons. I know of no one that wanted this in the first place. I think the diff that did this made reference to some random forum post by someone that no one knew. It was one of the a24ish changes that made absolutely no sense
-
You need a spy to tell you that your enemy is training an army? I hope you changed the cost to zero for that information
-
What’s the strategic use of that information 99.9% of the time after min 5? I would have about a 30% chance of learning that my enemy has farms around their CC. You said it changed from this originally, well it changed because it’s old form was useless too.
