maroder

mhh yes, I agree. How about yellow? Is a bright color so easy to recognize and its intermediate between "green" <- can produce and "red" <- can't produce. And you can still see the item that is paused.

I would say just grey it out (inclusive the green progress bar) If you want to use an icon on top maybe this one could work: https://github.com/0ad/0ad/blob/master/binaries/data/mods/public/art/textures/ui/session/portraits/technologies/clenched_fist.png Or take something like this:

You could try and just search for "interestinglog.html" maybe it just got saved somewhere else.

coming back to the original topic here I still like the formation behavior in your mod. Why don't you make a patch so it can be discussed if/ how this can be integrated in the main game?

I get the point but how do you view the current situation between e.g. the romans who have access to multiple siege weapons and a civ that only has rams (and no eles) lets say the Gauls. Is it not already implied that the romans are more favorable in late game? The counterargument I can think of would be: No romans are not stronger in late game, because their different siege options cost a lot of resources and Gauls can just produce more cheap units. And this is more the direction I was thinking of with the different playstyles. same here. I would say Mauryas have an advantage on the low wood maps through their worker ele. So should we get rid of it? Should we only have maps that have the same resource composition? I think advantages are fine to a certain degree, as long as they don't automatically decide who wins. I mean good for you if you see it that way, but it very much depends to what other games you compare it to. Basically you say the problem is not the game, but the expectation of the players, which is a valid point I guess. Since there is no up-to-date design document that describes how the game will develop in the future or how each faction should play, each player brings his own ideas and wants them implemented. Which brings me back to my original post -> It would be really good if we would create a design document, so that everybody is on the same page. agreed

yeah my bad, I have not put enough thought into the examples. The best already implemented example of such an "unique" playstyle i'm thinking of are the scythinans from DE.

Agreed

Well, it would make their playstyle more predictable, but it wouldn't and definitely shouldn't make their choices obvious. As @Dizaka wrote, each civ still needs to have multiple options and strategies, they should not be one trick ponies.

I would not go as far as that (one civ clearly counter another), but nice to hear someone generally agrees.

@Player of 0AD lol I knew that was coming

I kind of expected many people disagreeing with this which is why I want to have this as a very open discussion, so please rather comment than click on the confused smiley. Just as an example of a unique playstyle: the nomadic Scythians in DE are much fun to play

Much of the discussion about differentiating the civilisations in the game is right now focused on small changes to enable different strategies for the different civilisations. But I want to open a discussion here if those changes are not a bit too "small". If we look at other successful strategy games (in the widest sense) be it card games as magic the gathering or competitive online games as league of legends, we see that they enable the player to have completely different playstyles, which is probably why so many people like to play these games -> everyone finds a playstyle they like. For me 0ad is at the moment more comparable to chess; you can play different strategies, but it's still chess and always kind of the same, regardless which strategy you choose. I know that the civs kind of already represent different playstyles, but what if we would really accentuate that? I think vanilla AD could learn much from Hyrule conquest in that regard. So accentuate the playstyles of each civ, but also give them weaknesses through that instead of trying to balance them in every phase of the game. here just some links to interesting videos who touch upon this topic in game design: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXQzdXPTb2A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5Uk13mQdm0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QuKpJTUwwY But to come to an end here, I very much agree with sera in this discussion here https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4273#182067 The thing that would be needed first to do that is a design document about how each civ should play. So feel free to tell me if you agree or disagree on this ( every civ should have a vastly different / unique playstyle). If this was always the goal of the differentiation and I just didn't get the extent of the planned differentiation then please excuse my slow mind. Also independent of your opinion regarding the above, feel free to give your ideas about how to best structure such a collaborative design document creation process, as that may be beneficial nevertheless.

Sure why not. I am still wondering why there is such a pushback when this doesn't change anything about the gameplay. Not more surprising than any other change. This is a point for discussion. Watch out, this argument may come back to you in the future lol

Yeah, this is how I feel sometimes when I see nice ideas for the game shatter at the rigid mind of people.

The process should be called something with pyrogenesis if that helps. Nevermind, you wrote that already. Sorry can't help then.

@Yekaterina What exactly is it you dislike about the idea to have male and female gatherer/ citizens or however we call them? Because if it's only the recognition, I don't really understand your concerns. As I said, I tried the wow's mod and the citizens are (for me) clearly distinguishable from soldiers. Also as wow said: this is the concept that is used in AoE2 and it seems they didn't have problems with recognition.

It's hard to think of all possible impacts this change could have. Best would be a mod and then play lots of games to see what's better.

Yes that is a problem and should also be handled. _______ But to finish my point: I still think that having two gendered citizens in the main game would be a good choice. The way I see it the problem is not the depiction of women, but that they are the only (except priests) units who lack any real attack attack and defense capabilities, which is why they seem super weak in comparison. Maybe we can write an email to the author of the article linked above and ask about an opinion on this. I have tried the mod and the recognition between soilders an citizens is still good. Multiple people from the team have expressed that they would be ok with having two gendered citizens (at least for some civs), so I don't see a problem including it.

This can have multiple reasons. Firstly computer games and especially strategy games as RTS have a player demographic that is to a huge majority male. So there could be just less female player voicing their opinion. Also, I guess that the female players that may exist are less likely to participate in a forum discussion, due to the let's call it "confrontative" environment that is here sometimes. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_bias_on_Wikipedia as comparison. And lastly you are correct, not all women playing the game take issue with the depiction of female citizens (see this recent positive article: https://interactivepasts.com/blog-posts/0-a-d-part-ii-bring-in-the-queens/ )

I disagree. They depict women, which is why there is a transfer of the meaning and depiction between the ai and the real world. We give things meaning through the words we attach to them and through the way we depict them.

@Ryze it never did build walls in any of the recent alphas, cause it is not trivial to decide where to put them without blocking itselfself at the same time. So it's just not implemented (yet)

Here is it https://github.com/JustusAvramenko/0-A.D.-Alpha-24---Two-Gendered-Citizens

I guess this problem could be solved if ships would use the normal attack pattern where they attack the nearest unit / the unit you task them to attack and not buildingAI which spreads the attack on all enemies in range. But don't know what side effects that would have or what the original reason was to give ship the buildingAI.

I guess they are culturally important and strengthen the gathering morale of unites who see them. Same as the Iberian monument.

I agree very much with the type of civ uniques @chrstgtr is proposing. Unique techs are fine, but from a non competitive player perspective they don't make much difference for the unique felling of a civ. It is way better to have something unique that you can easily see and experience. I.e. some phase two champ, the war dogs, the workers ele or as an extreme example the Scythians from DE who have a completely different gameplay. @ValihrAnt for that reason I also agree that D4280 is superior to the alternative D4233