thankforpieOfficial

This is how i see 0ad development since theres so many discussions, concepts, feedbacks, it seems like everyone has an idea or two. Then who gets the final say? Stan? Someone else? Multiple people? If 0A.D. was my game the first thing I'd wonder about would be 1. What do I need to change or implement? Then I'd ask myself: 2. Why do I need to change/implement it? Then I'd think whether 3. This is important change that is also worth the time it would take to implement it. Then I'd 4. Write down the list of reasons for and against it & Examine them carefully. And then finally I'd 5. Make a list of systems that will need to be altered to work with this new change & Write how altered & Examine them as well. I personally don't see how making a generic civ in phase1 or in not-yet-added phase0 is going to be a ground-breaking change that will add hundreds of hours of game time before players get bored and leave. So while this doesn't seem huge I'm also not particularly against it because to be fair it may be a positive change: Firstly, the target civ becomes an upgrade, and players love upgrading stuff. Secondly, just as Borg said, it adds element of surprise. That said this change also limits certain things. For example all the people in phase 1 or phase 0 are going to have access to the same small subset of units and buildings. Where originally ptolemies would start with slingers and seleucids with skirmishers, they both will start with the same unit after the change. Ptolemies players that started with pikes usually had slower eco cause they, well, walked much slower. As for how hard it will be to implement this change - that I don't know.

i liked exploring different playstyles in a23

interesting. maybe we would actually see more strategies with longer battles. while 0ad takes skill in multiplayer, huge chunk of that skill is basically how fast you can build whole kingdom and army. I know there are people who can attack you from 4 sides in same time while improving their eco but majority of matches in multiplayer are decided by how fast players can reach full pop. if battles were less about unit spam, but more about how you use these units - wouldnt that breed more strategies and strategists? also please make it so ranged units arent always the strongest units because that kills any possible battle plan other than spamming melee cannon fodder and putting it in front of ranged units. and perhaps add counters to the game and make them strong enough to make it impossible to ignore them. that will make battles more significant. right now the battles are basically 'who has more DPS' thus players only play the civs with highest dps, and recruit only 1-2 type of units with said highest dps. Thats just boring approach to the battle. But counters add some more rules. Example: if enemy1 sends cavalry during a battle, enemy2 should call their sword formation back, and put their pike formation forward. this will require players to recruit more types of units than just <ranged units as dps + some spearmen as cannon fooder + swordsmen against rams>.

isnt that Archery Tradition, other upgrades, and base unit values? i dont see level up data for units Do you mean that spread is getting better on unit rank up?

can this stat be seen in game?

i see that makes sense. as for level ups, i just checked and other civs also had their level up bonuses removed from units the only thing that changes for eg. slingers is health and capture rate. is this desired effect?

seems level ups are not done for hans correctly? or is it all civs now? usually ranged units gained a bit of range on level up theres no difference for crossbowmen though. as for HAN archers, their range changes from (60) to (60 - 1) whatever it means looks bugged to me

just by eye. when second changed in game clock, i clicked. before units reacted, another second passed. another recording, its possibly more visible here:

According to the game clock it takes a little bit more than one second for units to react after i click, in multiplayer. One second and few miliseconds. BTW formatting broke in my original post bcuz of spoiler tags and i wasnt able to edit it

its instant in single player, but pretty slow in multiplayer, even if theres just one AI and tiny map

as above. havent been able to figure it out

my mouse roll is broken but theres no such option in hotkeys

natural maps are unbalanced. play Mainland if you want balanced map

are there significant differences between civs in a26? kinda liked that about a23

some siege warfare ideas: allow units to carry ladders and/or ropes, or make special unit type that has these (or smith upgrade) allow to ascend the enemy walls via ladders or rope, then descend on the inner side via the same way allow siege tower's garison to be unloaded on top of enemy walls. make walls and/or gates wider to allow for combat on top of them no one really used walls in multiplayer as far as I remember. I used them sometimes to slow down rams by placing them in weird directions and creating layers of walls in front of castle, but other players didnt care about walls. they just rushed 200pop, smith upgrades and barrack spam and everyone played like that so the assumption is players didnt care about trying walls or there wasnt enough time for them, or they werent worth it

0ad should try achieve a balance, with +/- 50% of players building walls, and other 50% not building. Definitely better than 100% turtling or 100% not building walls at all. Base design should matter too

even though I didnt specify it on OP, both of these changes will result in more ways to play and I believe thats what brings people to competetive games like 0ad - to figure out various combinations and strategies, to come up with the most efficient mix of these combinations and become good at it Territory decrease would support this concept, because barracks and other buildings could be built in second base, instead of using your former's base territory range and increasing it with each building in the direction of enemy (usually thats how it goes when players spam barracks)

unironically, Seleucids' military camp could work as second base, IN THEORY. in practice no one builds it cus its expensive and even if they do, they build it near their cc.

Castles usually have walls, but players never build them. I suggest to encourage players to build walls so that our castles resemble castles more. Such could be done by making them cheaper, more durable or more useful. Right now, the problem with walls is that u can go around them. and if you fully cover a finished 200pop base with walls, it will take way too much time, citizens and resources. At least that's how it was last time I played. I don't get why player usually loses when you destroy his CC? I suggest more nomadic approach, or multibase approach. Where player can quickly build a next base, or play with 2 and more bases. I suggest to make it worth it for player to build second base in early game. Or to look into the concept of mobile bases more. Or to make your armies build things when theyre outside the base. Right now once armies leave the base theyre going straight for cc with continous barrack spam. Perhaps make it worth it to build the barracks far from initial base, along with other buildings.

is that for cheating on your obese ex?

How are you lads and hows the state of game? I wasnt lurking for a long time. Wondering how's it all going

Game changed a lot since I made this thread. Who knows maybe it will become good eventually? :O

tbh i wonder how they will differentiate the civs

just stop trolling bro

this doesnt look bad to me tbh