BreakfastBurrito_007

we miss you @king reza the great!

My piece of advice: do not listen to DoctorOrgans about anything. He gathers chickens with women after all.

ranged units need to be able to miss, otherwise they are melee units. *edit: ok well there is also spread so they would still not be as bad as AoE 4. my bad for forgetting that. In the past 100 games I have watched and played I can not remember 1 instance of 'dancing'

I also think the spear throwing with a cooldown is something fundamentally different to simply switching between two weapons. That is also a champion ability so I think if the romans had something with the pilums--> sword, then it would need to be for a champion and use a different mechanic.

I enjoy the hills. We have feldmap in case we want 0 randomness, but I think the base version should have a lower standard deviation in resource amounts.

Infinite arrow speed makes ranged units into melee units with different armor and damage types and a long, long pike. I think we can do better.

Barracks, houses, and every other building also has its own territory influence, but not a territory root. I don't see how territories can remain circular when civic centers from different players are close together.

The non-circular shapes have a lot to do with capturing buildings. Perfect circles would stop working when buildings get captured.

Acceleration is an astonishingly simple calculation compared to the pathfinding and ranged combat. One major improvement acceleration has made for the game is making the movement advantage of cavalry less than total. In alpha 25 cavalry were so fast and agile that it was too easy to mitigate losses by selecting when and where to fight. In a26 if you make a mistake with cavalry you will lose many more units as you run away, and this is due to acceleration. This is why cavalry have slower acceleration than infantry. Other changes could be made to improve how infantry accelerate as well and perhaps considerations can be put in for ranged versus melee units.

Acceleration can be improved rather than removed. It also does not cause lag or alter pathfinding. Turn rates are fast enough already, with the exception of rams. About the chariots, you are right that they are not quite the same, but it is more of a unit design effort than quick fix.

I disagree with the proposition.

The game plays differently to starcraft and C and C in a variety of ways. One of these is that land can't be shared by allies.

It would be nice to have choices for team player positions, although I do disagree that having the better of two players on the border is an inherent advantage.

Seleucids have the best melee eles in the game due to the elephant hero giving additional attack and speed to elephants in an aura. I enjoy Seleucid elephants because you don't need many of them to cause a lot of damage. You can think of the hero himself as 2 eles due to his 2x damage and much greater hp, and with his bonus you can make hero+2 eles and it will be as effective as 5-6 elephants.

I remember Athenians had them earlier. I think it would be a good addition for them. Persians seem to have everything already and are really strong right now, perhaps if "Kardakes" skirms are added it would be to the same hero building that Persian immortals come from.

Because the elephant hero trains archer champions it is better to have it in low risk situations if you want to keep him alive. If the elephant bonus was added to the ele hero it would be impractical to make use of both bonuses at the same time. The healer hero usually stays with a mass of units due to his healing bonus, so that works very well with a global ele bonus.

small fragments of palisade walls take time from rams because they are usually ordered to go through rather than finishing off the other bits of palisades. The community in the community mod also voted against giving rams a more reasonable acceleration value, so each turn that palisades force rams to make prevents them from damaging valuable buildings.

Do they need to?

There is no need to outrun horses, but just to outrun other infantry.

Of course instead of cavalry we could have a couple types of "fast dudes" costing something more like 80 food 50 wood rather than 100 and 50, with adjusted stats of speed, hp, armor and perhaps interesting weapon choices.

I am thinking the prices will probably see changes based on how powerful each individual tech or what makes sense.

I would like the price high enough so that people don’t just mindlessly click all of them without considering which ones they want. On another hand we want the price to be low enough to justify the purchase. Perhaps adding 50 metal to the first series and 100 metal to the second series would put them in that range.

Keep in mind that the 2 basic stable upgrades that give +speed and +hp to all cavalry are gone. To be honest I think that swordcav and spearcav have mismatched armor values, with swordcav needing -1 pierce and spearcav needing +2 pierce armor. Its an issue that is aside from unit specific upgrades, kind of like the nerfs that are being discussed about melee champ cav.

Its not as fun to play the game at 1 fps as it is 30 because units dont respond as well, the game slows down and it becomes harder 'do things such as queue up the right unit, pan the screen, or keep your hero alive. Most of the performance issues are caused by the lack of threading and ranged unit queries. There has been a multi pronged effort to improve performance this upcoming alpha however, with engine upgrades, better drivers, and some other code optimization I don't know much about.

I think there are some big things we can do to promote 0ad, but there are some issues we need to tackle first. For one I am concerned ddos would become a bigger issue if the player count drastically increased. I think if we have a successful naval overhaul, performance improvements, and a really fun slate of balanced civs, that promoting the game could be very successful. In the past people have been very turned off by performance issues.