chrstgtr

Healing just isn’t very effective while in a fight. It certainly isn’t effective when your enemy is basically one-shotting your men by using 20 archers to simultaneously volley arrows on one specific unit at a time. Buffing healers would have the effect of buffing sniping because a good sniper will level up his units and then be able to return them to full health more quickly after a fight Spreading out units to avoid “overkill” is like a poor man’s sniping. I agree with @real_tabasco_sauce that changing unit stats would make things unnecessarily more complicated. Along those lines, though, I’ve always thought it would be cool if you could temporarily force units to run until they get tired. It could function kind of like how sprinting works in the EA sports games. That would introduce charging like a lot of players want. But it wouldn’t create the imbalanced mess that happened when charging was accidentally implemented during one of the RCs.

For me, sniping is ok when it’s small fights that are like 15v 15 units. That is also where sniping is least determinative. But when you have two armies of 100+ units and great sniping can lead to one player losing an entire army and one person losing 20 units and leveling up their entire army. Then that is a problem. It truly takes a lot of fun out of the game

I think I speak for everyone when I say--you will be missed. You oversaw a great development period for the game. Thanks for all that you've given and I wish the best.

@BreakfastBurrito_007 created the thread to say what he wanted. You came in as the first reply to call him a hypocrite and proclaim the rightness of your mod. There was back and forth and then @BreakfastBurrito_007 said “yea, anyway” to move on from your nonsense. You immediately replied again with paragraphs to proclaim how your cheat is less cheating than other worse cheats. But yeah, take the high road. Walk away by “stopping” as you continue to insist to have the last word. There are plenty of accusations I can make about you that I can’t prove. I know you are the first player to boom to 200 pop at the start of the game but I also know if you lose your CC and pop in late game you can’t grow greater than 50 pop with 10 minutes and mountains of tributes. I know you were one of the worst multitaskers in the game but overnight you suddenly “became” a decent rusher. Can I prove you do other cheats? No. But I already know from what you do tell me that you openly use plenty of cheats. Stop playing the victim. Stop cheating. Stop enabling other to cheat. Stop playing with people that don’t you in their games.

You're pretending that you're helping, but no one asked you for this and you have been told by many to stop. Be part of the actual development of the game if you want to see the features implemented--the biggest barrier is often the availability of volunteers. Your renegade approach just cannibalizes the process.

Yeah, but you constantly have to check if all your barracks are active. That requires a lot of checking/toggling. That’s a ton of work and really hard to do well (another reason why progui isn’t the same as auto queue). You can try it (I have) but it’s too much work for me to play a game that I play to relax. I would like an idle barrack button to match the idle unit button. Preferably with a visual cue.

I understand. But you usually hit max pop by the time you get a bunch of groups. Late game, you can have just two groups to transition to cav/champs. For ease, I usually just create one group for barracks and manually do individual barracks for one or two production cycles. By the end of one or two cycles, I usually have a chance to link the barracks up on the same production cycle from the same group. Cycling through barracks, like you describe above, sounds like too much effort for the reward, to me.

I see what you’re saying, but it’s still possible to do that with preexisting control groups. It just requires a few more clicks than/control groups than hot keys.

Also, AQ: peer reviewed for universal acceptance that has occurred Trainer: not peer reviewed with no universal acceptance @Atrik is just substituting terms to make it sound innocuous. “Read user input” is newspeak for “decide which units to make, how many to make, and when to make them” which is exactly how I described it the first time. Just because the player sets the parameters doesn’t mean the mod doesn’t do exactly what I said. Playing with a chess with the “assistance” of AI would isn’t all of a sudden made fair if the “user input” is to play at a 2000 level instead of a 3200 level, and it certainly isn’t fair if your opponent doesn’t consent to the “assistance.” Even with the substitution of terms, he still has to admit that it does some things differently with no player action.

@AtrikYour mod can decide which units to make, how many to make, and when to make them. It can also move the units for you. With the exception of only a few players (all of whom use your mod), everyone finds your mod problematic. @BreakfastBurrito_007 I don’t use autociv hot keys, and am not too familiar with their offerings. But based on your description, it sounds like you can accomplish most (all?) of what you want with control groups and a little more work. The control groups in the base game is what I’ve always used. A hot key button for all barracks would be nice but it would only actually save me like 20 clocks over the span of 30 minutes of gameplay (with most of those clicks happening before any real game action). Nice sure. But I’m not upset that it doesn’t exist.

I used to complain about how Elexis handled things from time to time. Looking back in it, Elexis did a great job and was under appreciated

The past is never dead. It is not even the past

yeah, I think I’ve seen it one or two times for real and it was in the context of an ally fort being accidentally too close to an ally CC. It is easy to imagine if you are building a new CC in unsettled area. but most of the time, it was trolling by an enemy or ally

Elexis is back?

I think it is a bug. Forts have a lot of territory influence, so when they are placed close by they begin to take over nearby structures. Functionally, this basically never happens unless you're trolling. You have to build so close to the CC that your builders are under constant fire.

Forts used to have territory root but that was taken out in a24–>a25 because it encouraged too much turtling. (I think fort only gave root in a24.) Maurya hero building gives territory root. (Maybe Persian hero buildings does too.) I don’t like that feature. Taking out territory root against Maurya is effectively “kill CC and find the hero building.” The Maurya building isn’t a last stand location. It’s easily captured as soon as it’s found but that might not be easy to do. It looks like your connection to your ally was just a little too short

Yeah. Those are great but mostly limited to p3. Differentiation should be more than tech trees and one of two unique OP units for each civ. We're running out of our ability to differentiation through unique units too as more and more civs get their own unique units (Romans got their own last alpha, same with Persia, etc.)

At one point, someone posted a video on YouTube of you can beat very hard AI with 300 women and clever micro. No one should suggest that women are too OP. It’s just that the AI isn’t very intelligent

I was more addressing the eco change proposal. But thanks for the feedback. Always good to have input. -------------- With respect to the actual forum thread topic, I would like to encourage others to try to come up with ideas that aren't just techs. Techs that modify an already existing template are a little gimmicky and lazy. Most techs also put us in a "race to push all the buttons." I would also say that the most interesting civ differentiators aren't techs. They are the inherent civ bonuses/features like Iber's walls, Iber's skirm discount, Athens' phrasing bonus, Mace's automatic tech research times, etc. These are differentiators that create really unique strategies and build orders, and are not just a "race to push all the tech buttons"

The community mod has a process to it. Someone notes a problem. Someone proposes a solution. It gets debated. It gets possibly modified. It gets voted on. If it receives enough votes, it goes in. Your proposed change hasn't gone through that process. I haven't looked at the thread for a long time, but I'm pretty sure there wasn't even a consensus that there was problem. I also believe some version of your proposal was previously debated and rejected (https://code.wildfiregames.com/D3704) (if I recall correctly, I actually wanted something somewhat similar to a progressive system like you proposed but I was unable to convince others). Simply put, your proposal hasn't undergone the review that other items that are adopted into the game and through the community mod have to go through. Additionally, your proposal's effect would have an extremely expansive effect, which suggests a greater need for caution and the review described above. ------------

I tell you these things because this is the common route that almost every player goes through (including myself). At one point, I thought rams were too strong. At one point, I thought AI was great. Then I played a little more and realized my errors. If you aren't interested in other people's opinions then I don't know why you're posting here.

If you really want the game that way you can mod it and play it all you want in SP. But most of your balance complaints aren't really valid. They're only valid for your current level. As your skill improves, you will see why the game is balanced the way that it is. Ultimately, it would be great if 0AD had a better SP experience. But, as it stands, it just isn't there. The lack of a better AI system is probably the biggest weakness of 0AD and that item that keeps 0AD from gaining a bigger player base. As it stands, AI is often too difficult for beginners and way too easy for experienced players. The lack of a true campaign mode is another glaring omission.

I guess what you're saying could be relevant. But only if all units can't eco within the borers. Otherwise, it just spreads out an eco. So long as all units are working then you will still end up with too much res

I agree in part. But I would also say that maps with relatively less metal/stone and relatively more wood create inequity for civs that rely on slingers/mercs. It's always very sad when the ptol player runs out of stone/metal and is stuck making only pikes and camels. There has to be somewhere between "way too much wood" and "way too little wood" that would make it more fair for everyone.

I would like that. The slightly less wood part would obviously be an alternative to making a smaller radius--both result in slightly less resources within the territory footprint. My radius idea is just easier for my less programing savvy brain to understand because it doesn't require changes to the underlying map generator.