Jump to content


Community Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by thankforpieOfficial

  1. image.thumb.png.7a65e9b351cd8238dee668f29d49e252.png

    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:

    1. Firstly, the target civ becomes an upgrade, and players love upgrading stuff.
    2. 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.

  2. 5 hours ago, hyperion said:

    The usual cap is at 200 -300 pop which is reasonable for this type of game. The issue is buildup / replenishing of troops is to fast which makes spamming to dominant. Also battles are to short, basically two blobs meting and going up into air almost instantly. Me thinks fights to be more attractive if they take some decent amount of time. Maybe halving damage values for all units / structures would be about right?

    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>.

    • Like 3
    • Thanks 1
  3. 3 hours ago, maroder said:

    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?

  4. 2 minutes ago, Sevda said:

    It could be the case that your archers are shooting enemies on high ground from a low altitude, which gives you a range penalty.


    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?

    • Like 1
  5. 35 minutes ago, vladislavbelov said:

    How did you measure the difference?

    Usually unit lag = frameTime (~16.6ms) + simulationTurnDuration (200ms).

    just by eye. when second changed in game clock, i clicked. before units reacted, another second passed.

    another recording, its possibly more visible here:

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





    (by the way, the difference is actually much bigger than on the recorded files, i wasnt able to capture the exact difference, cus the soft recorded at framerate 30-60). But yeah the difference from the perspective of a player is huge. And the better PC&monitor player has, the bigger the difference. Players wont feel it if they play both single player and multiplayer at 60fps and 60 refresh rate max, at least not that much.


    First I thought its something with my setup, but i checked all settings and my pc as well and it doesnt seem to be the case. I have better hardware and network than is required for this game (easily getting 300fps). As for network i have 600mb download, 150mb upload and 4ms ping to servers in the same city as me.

    It's such a letdown in many ways. Last game I played was League of Legends, ultra-competitive. And the INSTANT reaction time was amazing in it. I didn't even know I liked it that much until i played 0ad multiplayer again and realized how much not having that instant reaction frustrates me. And to be honest competitiveness is the main reason why multiplayer is so popular, regardless of the game that is played.

    I'm wondering if there are any plans to fix reaction time or general lag?

    • Thanks 1
  7. 2 hours ago, Norse_Harold said:

    Gurken Khan said:

    Exactly. So, a path forward with making walls more realistic is through modding and/or an alternate game mode. Once it reaches critical mass then players might like to play it sometimes in multiplayer.

    I would like to see walls actually block projectiles, and offer much more offensive and defensive benefits. I read somewhere that castles could be successfully defended with 1/6th the number of troops as those who were attacking. Of course, siege warfare is the logical counter to this, and that can usually only be broken by a counter-attack by an allied army.

    some siege warfare ideas:

    1. allow units to carry ladders and/or ropes, or make special unit type that has these (or smith upgrade)
    2. allow to ascend the enemy walls via ladders or rope, then descend on the inner side via the same way
    3. allow siege tower's garison to be unloaded on top of enemy walls.
    4. 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

  8. 18 minutes ago, Gurken Khan said:

    I believe players don't build walls because they're not efficient. If you want to change the gameplay to encourage turtling I expect heavy resistance from the vocal MP crowd.

    I always build military colonies, because they each have a unit I want. If territory and cost are reduced, I guess I would build more CCs/MCs, but I don't see it as a priority.

    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


    • Like 1
    • Confused 1
  9. 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

    2 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

    There has been an effort to reduce the territory increase with each age and to decrease the cost of civic centers.


    Also, @ValihrAnt made an experimental mod for some changes, including less CC,colony territory increase and decreased CC, colony cost.

    I think the patch is good, because the city phase in particular has too much area. If more changes are needed after this patch, then the cost and base territory radius (without phase increases) should be reduced.

    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)

    • Like 1
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    • Like 2
    • Confused 1
  10. 1 hour ago, mimesot said:

    I really don't appreciate the tone of some community members. This makes me sad. Giving critical reviews is essential for the developement of the game, but not a wildfire of anger. Thats detrimental to the morale of a dev team. A critical statement should always include a very specific description of an issue, a reasining wha it is a problem and a qualifier on how much it actually reduces the fun in the game as well as a suggestion on how to resolve it. I would like to ask people to use this forum to support de devs and not just rant.

    And yes, I agree that the un-diversifivation of the factions is reducing the excitement in picking a faction and yes, the romans took a steep, painful dive to bottom tier. But overall the improvements in A24 are significant and I wanna se us stay in an appeciating mood.

    Is there any chance that we might have a balancing patch a24.1 in the forseeable future?

    tbh i wonder how they will differentiate the civs

  11. On 19/03/2021 at 8:24 PM, vinme said:

    censoring system doesnt even make sense.it accomplishes absolutely nothing.anyone can just write any other abbreviation of the swear word that they wanna say.

    only people who get mute really are the ones who forget to change the nonoword or make a typo.

    what is the purpouse even? there are also many swear words completely allowed and many some would say horrible rants in lobby about various horrible things much worse than swearwords. i say remove mute for swearing. the current mute for swear is unjust,unjustified and just plain wrong.

    just stop trolling bro

    • Like 1
  • Create New...