maroder

I figured but I still don't understand why you care about that specific point, if it doesn't change anything about the gameplay itself. Hmm I get the point, but isn't that debatable? You could still have a tech/ hero that gives +X% resistance and personally I find it easier to keep the percentages in mind, as they have a clear meaning. well, you could write 98% no need to get into the decimals. seem like the consensus on every topic. lol. But the point is that it is not clear to a new player (or even to many experienced player) what +1 Resistance means. 10% hack resistance is much more clear imo.

lol but why? As you said, it wouldn't even change anything about the gameplay. The question is why do we need resistance levels in the first place and can't just use the percentages?

Thanks to the FAQ https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/FAQ#Gameplay and to the very length discussion here: I finally have an idea about what the nebulous resistance levels do. Which raises the question: Why is it so complicated in the first place ? I don't think that many people know what those values mean. How about dropping the resistance levels and the obscure exponential calculation and just use percentages that everybody understand? E.g. 10 hack attack on a unit with 50% hack resistance = 5 Damage. Am I missing some hidden uses cases of the resistance levels?

works for me

Generally I agree moving them to a filter may be enough. But for the sake of the argument itself: quality over quantity. related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_fatigue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overchoice

exactly That would have been my preferred solution, but the unlocking code doesn't allow something like this at the moment (at least as far as I know).

Agreed that everybody starts with Acropolis bay, but if you have played that one and then want to try another one which looks bad in comparison you still get a worse impression of the game.

So basically just rename the tech? If so, then what actual name should we use? I haven't seen that much concensus

I agree with this getting off-topic

taking the lead is a bit of a blurry description. Do you mean as in 'writing down how the game currently works' or as in 'how it should work' ? The latter will probably cause some conflict e.g. making or contributing to a design document would also require some kind of decision or knowledge about what features will be implemented in the future and which just won't make the cut. E.g. secondary weapons. phase 4, new civs ect. Generally I would like to help out with that task, but it is unclear what *exactly* the task contains. ______ Hmm sure, some things are better / quicker to discuss in real time (so it might be a good option to have some kind of regular internal chats), but I think the asynchronous communication is actually a strength of the development process. I think it's mostly a problem of diverging ideas about how the game should play and discussing something like that means emotional investment which just cost a lot of energy.

this. It is incredibly demanding and time consuming task to argue with people why your view of how the game should be is the good and should be implemented. So people who have the skills to actually do some changes are unfortunately better off time and motivation wise by just creating a mod, especially when they don't play multiplayer. So the incentive of making, discussing or accepting gameplay patches is just not that big, the exception being glaring issues (e.g. fire cav).

For me this comes back to the problem that it's hard to define what 'balancing' is and that there is no definite feature/ gameplay-design plan. Everyone comes in with different ideas of how they would want the game to look and play like and no consensus in any form is ever reached. So is this a discussion about e.g. skirmishers need -1 hack or about hard vs soft counter or about how different civs should play and how the grand gameplay works? Without a having a defined goal of what the balancing discussion should lead to, it's hard to discuss it.

I just watched this video about why aoe2 is more popular than aoe3 and one reason discussed is the worse unit motion in aoe3 particular through a snare effect. Not sure if it is the same as you had in mind but something to consider. @5:40

Bug is already reported, see https://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/6494

Yeah, that seems like a good idea

No, should not be too difficult. Until we have them for all civs we can also just use one as a placeholder and them add them one by one.

As long as there is no skilled digital painting artist around who wants to put in some serious hours I don't think there is much value in discussing something in that direction. And even if there were such a person, I would like them to do some more main menu backgrounds first ________ I have no strong opinion on banner vs civ emblem. Banner seems easier art wise, as you only have to do one, but the civ specific, result-colored emblems have a bit more expression. But I am not really a fan of the idea to have the banner be the player color tho (seems like a decent chance to get some atrocious looking results, especially when using mods that change the player colors), or to have a quick summary or stats displayed there. Maybe I will change my mind in the future but right now a clear division between the endgame message and the summary feels better to me. _______ about the files: naming doesn't matter as long as it's consistent, so whatever seems sensible. And baking the icons on top or not: I guess it would save a bit of code if they are together but it shouldn't matter that much. Keeping them separate would allow easier improvement of the individual parts in the future.

I recently read the Blender forum copyright guidelines and just wanted to discuss if there is any relevancy of that to 0ad. They basically say: "Don't post any screenshot of other (non-open source) applications as reference" because apparently they did get into legal trouble about that in the past. So is this something that should be handled in a similar way here in the forum and on phabricator + trac, or is the situation here different?

having a 4th phase doesn't change phase 1 and 2 being short. One would need to redesign them so that they actually provide different gameplay options, instead of just being phases you rush through to p3. So I don't think that's a good argument. I'm not against p4, but it has t be filled with something meaningful and unless most of DE's concepts are adapted I don't see this happening.

I think the differentiation is them being able to build a military colony. Also allowing the cc reduces the differentiation from my view

should be disabled imo. Seems very not ovious and I don't see a specific reason for why they need to be able to build cc's.

that was my thought. But I guess a fallback to the cc works.

a few comments: the blue looks a bit too much neon like for me. maybe something a bit more muted or maybe a gold/ "light"-like color? and I know it's just a mock-up, but the laurel wreath is a bit too much icon/comic like imo. I can imagine that a bigger more realistic variant (maybe also in gold/metal color) could even be used around the whole circle? Then it becomes a problem to define what that actions is, which I think is quite hard. ___________ Other question: should it display the civ or the player name? ___________ I this should be easy enough to do, provided the art is there and minus the map rotation/snap to winning action. One problem could be that there is right now no text available that is that big.

See: https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4511

@Stan`