BreakfastBurrito_007

I expect the same, and I am pretty sure we did discuss changing the values in some earlier discussion. I think it would be cool if garrisoning a minister in a barracks or stable could increase the xp trickle rate of that building (non-stackable). yea overall I am glad that the woman bonus has been removed and now there are civ-specific ways to buff eco in certain radiuses.

@Tyrannosaurus also I recommend trying multiplayer when you feel ready (unless you already are). It might be hard to find a lobby or 1v1 for your proper skill level, and if you get stomped on don't get flustered. At the end of the day, playing versus real players is way less frustrating than playing vs AI. Ask around for tips, because nice people will give them to you.

I saw some earlier posts about unit silhouettes and I encountered this one in an online 2v2. Tried a rehost, which is the second game, and it did not resolve the issue. It also happens in singleplayer if I try that. metadata.json commands.txt metadata.json commands.txt

We seem to have a really hard time getting people to test the new changes. What if we took down the a25 lobby for 3-5 days and instead put a message suggesting testing and providing links for RC downloads. I feel like many players would use the RC if other people were also doing so, and many more would not mind downloading the RC if it was the only option to play 0ad. Playing a variety of TGs and 1v1s with players finding new strategies and sharing them and refining them are how we get to appreciate new changes, and a limited number of awkward and imbalanced RC matches are not sufficient for that. I know that this would result in a bunch of complaints, but I think it is a simple way to boost the player-developer interactions and feedback.

I think this would help solve the issue where certain units die extremely quickly and other units die more slowly, like archers vs swordcavalry. Its ok that these differences exist, but it would allow a player to pick off low hp swordcav or spearcav in a rush which would be way more effective than the current distributed damage. It would also mean that players could not mitigate the damage of towers by massing up enough units to dilute it.

An alternative/addtional patch we might consider if the crossbow is too powerful in p1 is changing the cost to 50 food 40 wood 10 metal. I think the crossbow will be the best anti-rush unit since it has good range and high immediate damage, so for example if a 5 javcav rush comes to your woodline at 4-6 minutes you are certain to kill at least one each time they come in range.

I think the units slow down more when they take bigger angle turns. I suppose if you wanted cavalry to not slow down when turning you would make a series of smaller angle turns. It would be cool if there was 0 slowdown for a 30 degree angle either left or right.

mm I was just going off of what I remembered the acceleration values for different units to be. @Stan` @wowgetoffyourcellphone what do you guys think of the possible gameplay depth and balancing opportunities? My goal is to get @real_tabasco_sauce or someone else interested enough to make a mod for it.

@Stan` perhaps you got confused by my wrong units on the acceleration value. + 20 m/s should be +20 m/(s*s).

I think in a27 we need to add some unit-specific upgrades. In a25, we have very general military upgrades, and they tend to simply increase the damage by a percentage or increase the armor of all your units. I think the gameplay quality could be immensely improved, if more consideration and planning was taken into account when getting upgrades and planning your unit composition. Here is my idea for how this system would work: each unit gets up to 2 unit specific upgrades in the barracks or stable, and these would appear in slots underneath the unit they apply to the upgrades would focus on particular battlefield traits rather than a boring +% attack example for spearcav: phase 2 available: +20 m/(s*s) acceleration, + 2 m/s speed. cost: 400 food, 250 metal phase 3 available: +2m attack range + 1 pierce armor. cost: 500 food 250 wood 300 metal example for slingers: phase 2 available: +.5 crush damage . cost: 200 food 100 wood 200 stone phase 3 available: + 5m range. cost: 300 food 200 wood 350 stone The idea behind these upgrades is that we could pick and choose which civs get which of those unit-specific upgrades. Of course, no one civ should have them all, and those upgrades might not need to be researched every single game. I think the gameplay would be way better with such upgrades, because they would increase differentiation (which civs get which upgrades for which units?), increase the options for balancing units (we can tweak unit-specific upgrades to balance units), and provide a big increase to the strategic depth of the game, with players choosing upgrades and altering their army compositions or tactics.

It would be cool if I did not get housed with 0 on wood XD. But I certainly like the unique strategy planning aspect that Kushites get with how they place their temple/s in p1.

Wall towers don’t shoot arrows anymore. I think one of the main disadvantages to mounting units on the walls is how few can fit up there. I think 20 per wall section would be more useful, and since stone walls are thick I think it could be done with 2 rows of 10.

Team bonuses bring more diversity into the game and so you can test more combinations of units/bonuses/heroes than you can in a 1v1 (think skirm cav mercs with iber team bonus). I would say that 1v1s are necessary but are not "better" than team games for balance.

I should say that this is on top of them being both the main reason for cav being OP this alpha: they buff up a standard cavalry composition and eventually players just forget about melee cav and make almost pure javelin cav. I am seeing worrying gameplay where they are used simply as superior versions of skirmishers: for their extra damage and not any of the mobility benefits that they offer. It seems all players and civs that have them will eventually want to transition into javelin cavalry if they want to win. Even in the best case micro scenario for spearcav player, the spearcav will barely win. Since the spearcavalry has a counter against cavalry, less base damage, and less durability than swordcav, it should at least be able to convincingly beat skirmcav. Changing damage from 18 to 16 will nerf cavalry in general since skrimcav are at least one component of cavalry 95% of the time (most civs have it and everyone knows they are OP). I like fixing multiple balance issues with a good fix, and I think reducing damage from 18 to 16 accomplishes that.

I did some cav testing in RC2 of a26 and it seems without micro, spearcav get consistently beaten by equal numbers of javelin cavalry. I think it would be appropriate to reduce javelin cavalry damage by 2 from 18 to 16.

I agree that cavalry (in particular javelin cavalry) are a bit op this alpha. There are certainly more obviously OP units around like firecav or merc cav, but I have gradually observed that most civs all tend to prefer transitioning to javelin cavalry as the game goes on, and that suggests to me that it is for most purposes the best unit. Some players have been simply using javelin cavalry as an alternative to javelin infantry, without even utilizing much of the mobility benefits. Javelin cavalry have +2 attack which grows to +4 attack after all upgrades, as well as extra hack armor and more than 2x the hp. I think we should consider simply reducing the damage of javelin cavalry

personal emotion? I am not the one lashing out with "stupid" or using cuss words on every sentence and writing long unhinged paragraphs. It is true I should have gotten more screenshots to convince people who might read this. Otherwise it is just you ranting to people who are tired of your antics, which is the reason you got kicked in the first place. You did not get kicked because SaidRdz wasn't dancing, you got kicked because the host, the players, and the spectators were tired of your hysteria.

I agree that saidrdz did do some dancing once the game was lost. However this is not the whole story, in fact your account starts being problematic right here: the game went on for about a minute until it was ddosed, with vinme having left and re-entered the lobby. This is just what I observed. vinme was irate in chat at the host that he had been kicked and not Saidrdz, so he kept trying to verbally confront the host in lobby chat. The host just wanted a new game so a new one started and filled up, but got ddosed as well. A third game started and this one took about 3 minutes before being ddosed, and people were able to rejoin the same host this time I took this screenshot of when vinme joined that host after the ddos did not fully take down the game. It is true that I should have taken more of them when he hinted that he would take action against the host player. I think every third party in that host (spectators, players) will agree that even if vinme is correct to accuse saidrdz of breaking an unspoken rule (dancing), that his over-reaction including insults to the host and other players as well as ddos attacks constituted a worse offense than saidrdz' dancing. I hope this clears things up for anyone interested.

I don’t mind vision ranges being reduced, because once everyone is p3, I get the impression that everyone can see everything. Perhaps the game is a bit predictable at that stage, but also I find it very hard to surprise anyone. maybe vision range upgrades for p1 and p2 should be considered along with a broad unification and reduction.

I read the discussion on the code page thing, and @chrstgtr had mentioned about 17 women full upgraded farmers was equivalent to garrisoned cows for one set of values discussed there. I am a bit worried about the balance results of this feature relating to cavalry, Persians (new food trickle buildings), and raiding. I would like to see the system have some kind of management aspect to it, rather than it being “set up and forget”. I know there is no precedent for such a mechanic in 0ad, but what if the trickle built up at the corrals instead of going directly to the bank, and you had to send a woman to collect it or “milk the cows”. I am thinking the woman would gather it at a super fast rate from the corral and then walk to a dropsite.

Perhaps an account creation date would be a good way to help players make their own judgments about smurfs. I was thinking the account info sheet could be expanded to help this.

Wow that would be fun but also really hard.

I had no issues with the minimap we currently have, and I am a bit worried about those larger markers covering up certain info

I thought this only applied to towers and defensive structures, but I had never investigated it.