Jump to content

a 0ad player

Community Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by a 0ad player

  1. Hi, scouting is essential for 1v1. Furthermore as a basis an okish economy is important (no res flowing, tec timing, not get housed, enough production buildings, balance of food and wood income). See also from ValihrAnt https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/62720-challenge-to-reach-100-pop-in-the-shortest-time/ Do not fight in formation and not in range of a fort / CC.
  2. For Champ Cav I would like an increase of resources of 2 per unit, so: 1st unit: 150 Food // 80 Wood // 100 Metal 2nd unit: 152 Food // 82 Wood // 102 Metal 50.unit: 250 Food // 180 Wood // 200 Metal
  3. 0ad hat 3 Schadenstypen: Stich (Fernkampf), Hieb (Nahkampf), Stoß (gegen Gebäude). Folgende Einheiten sind in unterschiedlichen unvollständigen Kombinationen in den 0ad Zivilisationen vorhanden: Also Ja, der Typ des Schaden von Wurfspeer und Bogen ist der selbe, die Rolle und damit Nutzbarkeit unterschiedlich.
  4. Great, please add a shared resource option above 300 so me can build a barracks.
  5. Hi, I have tried the a26 pre-release candidate. Tutorial is much better now, great. Here is what I noticed: - When leaving a game the text is bigger than the textbox (see picture) - The new Macedonian wonder is beautiful but huge and hard to place. - Selecting idle units selects the Han Minister (standing around "inspiring" his surroundings) which is a bit annoying. - Selecting wounded units with hotkey (O) did not work - Pigs, cows/water buffalo are no longer available in P1, not a fan of that Thanks to all for your work here
  6. And the replay files are present and located in the respective path/folder of your operating system? /home/user/.local/share/0ad/replays/0.0.25/ C:\Users\username\Documents\My Games\0ad\replays\0.0.25
  7. Yes, I don't find changes as desirable as natural/historical growth. Adding units / features / game mechanics that are based on reality (and the likely trailing changes) I find good. Reworking I find good in exceptional cases (when something really disturbs). The current form of the specification does not bother me, I am used to this, there are the advantages mentioned by Player of 0ad and a reason / story for the calculation. As a simplification I find the armor health equivalent of nescio good but visually not desirable.
  8. And where do these strange percentages come from, xd? The mod of nescio I find the most useful. Otherwise, please do not change anything xd.
  9. When I imagine a line of archers in a battle, they fire arrows at an area. If the other ranged fighters are sighted, an area with as many people as possible is bombed with arrows. The area corresponds to the seen or assumed position of the enemy ranged fighters. Translated I think an area is selected. The arrows are shot at individual ranged fighters with an appropriately increased inaccuracy. Most arrows land in the middle of the area (most enemy ranged fighters) and the intensity decreases towards the edge (distribution image). Lumped groups are hit more often, making battle orders more important. When most of the people in the area have died (less than 10 people remain in the area, for example) and the situation becomes confusing or new orders are given, the attack ground is over. I think attackground for archers is a good idea. With spear throwers, I envision direct visible targets and not an area attack.
  10. Battles are exponential, so single units don't really cause any damage, or outnumbered battles (less combat power) cause negligible damage. Against an overwhelming attack, it is best to gain time and minimize your own damage. Fortresses, CC and towers cause simplified area damage while the units quartered there take no damage. Skirmishers, Slingers, Archers (units with little health and little armor) die first in area damage, which usually greatly reduces the fighting strength of the enemy army. Destroying isolated siege weapons protects the buildings and slows down the push. All isolated units (groups) can be targeted. Units capturing buildings can also be targeted (especially by moving units in and out of buildings). Splitting the attention of the opposing player can help. Counterattacks especially with cavalry / siege weapons in the enemy base can be very effective or split the attention very much. Which in turn makes individual units targetable. Under certain circumstances it makes sense to face the enemy army slightly outnumbered in order to reduce their numbers and thus protect your building. It is important to scout and set up outposts in important areas so that there is enough time to react.
  11. Quote: "Don't change the gameplay please. We really need loading of multiplayer matches and better performance instead." (I agree) Why? Because fire cav works well with 30+ units. To demolish buildings 50+ units are advantageous. In short fire cav is a late P3 unit. Iber has a strong eco but no continuous powerspike. Briton and Gaul are the only civs that also only have rams as siege weapons, but have p2 and early p3 powerspikes and good p1 harassment potential. Iber boom can be harassed very well in p1 using cav, especially spear cav. The eco bonus helps with skirmishers and iber is vulnerable to swort cav harassment in p2. Iber food eco can be harassed well by cav archers. I find the iber towers more of a disadvantage because they cost more and are easier to take over due to the larger footprint. The Iber wall secures the food eco but hinders the eco growth, which is why some players tear it down in parts. To really take advantage of the fire cav, a 30+ fire cav and a cav army are recommended. A large material and time investment. As a strong unit in a spearman, swordsman, skirmish army the mobility is far less and the damage potential as well (ford, turret...defenses work). If someone builds up iber fire cav I just use skirm, swort cav to keep the numbers small. The short range of the fire cav is its weakness and means that losses in hp or units will occur. If someone uses that many units for the eco those groups can be overwhelmed or the eco slowed down. If someone is not fighting in early p3, one of the allies can be overwhelmed (doubled) in TG. I think there are enough ways to prevent a larger number of fire cav. Why every unit has to be a copy of another unit and can't stand for itself (unique selling point) I don't understand. An op army after 25+ minutes in the game without being harassed I find ok.
  12. Work on your boundaries. Wisdom used to be important (known forever: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7hdUorDU-U). Today, people's focus is outward / on productivity caught in a downward spiral instead of inner freedom. The resulting stress often makes people sick and can be buffered by exercise, antioxidants and restful sleep.
  13. In phase 1 as maury infantry rushing ptol focus fire the slinger, use the longer range for hit and run, surround the enemy units, lots of mico. It is best not to fight, it is not worth it because of the distance to the opponent, because of the inaccuracy and low dps of the archers. Melee units are of little use in this particular scenario. Later swordsmen are essential. Unfortunately 0ad has no attack ground xd.
  14. Feels like quicksand. Would require a lot of balancing (eco, rushing, fighting, ...). Would break cavalry/rushing without rebalancing, which is generally in a very good place right now.
  15. If I don't like something, I don't read it. Could make sense for certain situations to insert an option how many lines are displayed to me in the title and how many lines are displayed to me in the lobby chat. No idea if player mute works for lobby chat. At some point games were displayed in the title bar for days / weeks and the host was absent (playerlist). I did not like that so much.
  16. hi, i play mostly teamgames and i feel the sword cavalry / mercenary sword cavalry is a bit op. Spearmen as a direct counter are half as fast and about 1:1 tradable at worst. A few tests on this resulted in: - Spearmen (gaul) vs 20 cav (maury cav / rom champ) - 1 spearman can defeat 1.3 sword cavalry units 1.3 spear vs cav 1.0 spear vs cav + all upgrades (for spear and cav) 0.6 spear (Rank1) vs cav (Rank3) + all upgrades 0.5 spear vs champ cav + all upgrades 0.4 spear vs champ cav + all upgrades + hero for defence The potential for damage is very high and due to the high mobility relatively risk-free. Don't fight against collections of spearmen while ranged infantry units and women can be fought almost without loss. I agree that CS cavalry should be somewhat op (collection rate, ...) and especially the cathago sword mercenary cavalry is needed as a very vial strategy. Increasing the risk (less mobility, less robust) would make sense to me. For example, not applying the last stab resistance upgrade of the forge to sword cavalier and not letting the cavalry units overlap so much (footprint). In teamgames, there are always unit accumulations against which the cavalry can be traded disproportionately profitable as soon as the high mobility can be used. Spearmen are not everywhere.
  17. Hi, I think the palisades are fine. Rather, the curve with the upgrades for cavalry is too steep. I don't like this part of the balance, because every game can be won with cavalry army = op. The last defensive upgrades in the forge should be only for soldiers and the last offensive only 10% or not for cavalry. The starting values of cavalry start higher and the difference between upgraded soldiers and cavalry becomes too big. In addition, the cavalry is in too small a space. 10 sword cavalry vs 1 palisade seems unrealistic to me, too high dps concentration. Also the buildings are quasi fixed in their values. Optional upgrates and lower starting values could open up the game.
  18. Hi, I also thought that range units should prioritize certain unit types. Then I thought that would take away some of the micro positioning.Then I thought what if enemy units closer than 25m/50m or 60% of range would be prioritized first (like in real life self protection comes first). And then a prioritization of unit types would take place. Likewise for a26 I would like to see more geographic bonuses / more weight of positioning like Cossacks. For dancing with heroes, a stun function could increase the risk. Something like when more than 40 range units attack a hero there is a 20% chance to get stunned (fall off horse 5sec / get overpowered 3sec) and take a lot of damage. I think units mico is a skill and should be able to give advantages, only heroes are overly resilient as tanks.
  19. Hello, the archer vs skirmish balance for a25 interests me. I have listed my tryouts in the table below. I think the balance should be tested in a25 on a larger scale. Felt the archers are very slightly underpowered in the test. I think cathago needs a buf. Cathager army has too little dps without viable counterbalance (pop bonus or other unit types, mercenaries too expensive and can do too little). Procedure: - a25 svn from 07/25 - Groups sorted with Closed Battle Order and then no default formation chosen. - Skirmish group sent off by patrolling - Number of surviving units entered in table - all tech: blacksmith, Ford, CC (Persian vs. Briton)
  20. Hello, how about a second monthly elo list. 0ad is not like professional sports where enough people are constantly competing. I play for fun and have no interest in being rated/observed by others. (Therefore I refuse an elo decay, which would be a forced participation in the elo observation system). I need the elo value as a certificate to not be constantly asked about my ability (which is used very differently depending on the game). To balance games I rely on my experience with the players. The all-time elo value is more a rough statement about the minimum skill (an average with large standard deviation) of the players for me. Those who want to have their skills recorded in a list can hold their monthly list / monthly tournaments.
  21. Hi, give Skirmisher infantry and cavalry +5m range for rank 2 and +10m (from base value) range for rank 3.
  22. Hi, thank you for the opportunity to take part in the discussion on this topic. I think more battles between the players before P3 leads to more varied gameplay. Very simplified, I win in 0ad if I have siege weapons to tear down the opponent's CC. I obtain siege weapons through: • Booming: have as many units and technologies as possible, as fast as possible • Turtling: have as many units and technologies as possible as safely as possible; (the many citizen soldiers and especially in a24 the archers as well as the tower spam transform Booming from phase 2 to turtling for cavalry raids (tower spam = turtling against citizen soldier rush)) • Rushing: I slow down my development to slow down my opponent by slow down by idle time and picking up single units (cavalry raid = over reaction, pop cap, mis macro, deny resources for a short time) stop as long as possible by denying resources (cavalry raid, towers, citizen soldier + outpost (a23)) reverse development by blocking resource gathering, blocking space, taking over and/or wrecking buildings so that the opponent surrenders (All in (if all goes well) and raiding with slingers, archers, cavalry, dogs, champs, ele). Personally, I don't like All Ins in the first 4 minutes of a game and the CC is the counterbalance to those strategies. When I first played 0ad, Turtling was my strategy to get to know the game. Now it's Booming to be able to use siege weapons as quickly as possible. Rushing doesn't seem as worthwhile to me because it's too hectic and outside of 1v1 my opponent is mostly "just" slowed down. If I have enough hunt available a raid with cavalry is OK. I like the straight forward approach of 0ad. The tree like growth with the citizen soldier as trunk. You get what you invest. When I played Age of empires for the first time in my childhood it seemed odd to me that some people just stand around or fight. The citizen soldier being able to collect resources in a time with less specialized roles makes more sense to me. I think I read suggestions from Borg to create a technology for melee units tradition and for Britten or Gaul to allow forge technologies earlier in the barracks. As well as suggested by Nescio (https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/37312-balancing-defensive-structures-test-mod/) allow more variance in stats of defensive strutures. Technologies (greater variance in stats) that differentiate Rushing or Turtling more could help.For example, a technology that lets twice as many women quarter in houses, gives legionnaires in turtle formation pikmen armor and the speed of Rams, gives the CC 70 or 75m radius for little resources and lots of technology research time. Further, I don't understand the reduced collection rates for rank 2/3 citizen soldier. If I keep attacking and winning in TG pizza my collection rate will be lower, no incentive here. On the other hand, as soon as more space is available, it makes more sense to use cavalry to slow down the opponent most of the time and defeat him in P3 with siege weapons. Bonuses, mechanisms and abilities that have historical origins would be good. I think "scouts", archers... raids are possible and take place in P1 to slow down the opponent. In P2 the citizen soldiers are so numerous that a turtling effect occurs. More differentiation of Rushing and Turling (start lower with the values) strategies could help here. Stopping the opponent or resetting his development are only possible in smaller spaces or take time or game sense with good execution.
  23. Hi, I like the working elephant as it is now. In general, I like ele and enjoy everyone on my team. More rationally I agree that Maurya civ is OP more often because of the archers, the higher pop cap and the siege weapons that are too easy to obtain. In A23 Maurya was not rated as to strong. Pros working elephants: Saving 100 wood at the start of the game Unique Maurya tactic: start all in Cav / Harassment in Biome with a lot of hunt !!! Maurya is the most wood-heavy boom civilization (no slingers, no mercenaries, no military colony, 300 wood for barracks) and working elephants as a counterbalance, I think it's good Contrary working elephants: Economy bonus is ok (travel time is often forgotten) Units spread over a larger area means higher risk = individual groups can easily be attacked General: Different maps favor different civilizations and the Civ selection is part of the game (otherwise just mirror matchup) Playing Sim City is not so much about winning or losing. So the working elephant topic is more important in competitive games. Newer competitive players have greater advantages from good macro / map position. In the early / middle / late game, longer journeys mean economic losses and higher risk (scouting of the opponent is required) If someone is able to farm resources in my territory, they deserve them.
  24. Hi, thanks to everyone involved in developing 0ad. I really like the game. I think the current unit vs unit balance and various types of units are good. I think new to a24 is the hard counter of archers vs. infantry spearmen/ slinger. In a23 the direction of the counter was reversed as long as there were not a large number of archers (affected 2-3 civilizations). At the moment I see the counterattack units as follows: Bow: hard counterattack against infantry spearmen / slinger Spear: counters bow Melee cavalry: very hard counterattack archers Infantry spearmen: counters spear Slinger: counters spear and building In short, the two main, ranged economic units are countered harshly by archers. The rock, scissors, paper system is much more important in a24 than in a23. I like strong units and find the balance good. When I counter archer civilizations with melee spear or melee cavalry, the archers are withdrawn under towers, castles, CC or temples. From phase 2 there are often 1-4 towers. There should not be fought or not longer than 1 minute. Longer battles in the economy of the archers civilizations are often not useful / too expensive from phase 2 on, especially if there are too many towers. I mainly play team games and I refer to that in particular. In my humble opinion, the gameplay is currently broken due to the decisions to be made. As an archer civilization I let the economy grow and only need to pay attention to building towers and later anti ram. In P3 I can easily force any fight using 1-2 rams so that javelin and slinger civilizations lose either buildings or units. As Infantry spearmen civilization, I might win if I decide to largely forego my main long-range economic unit and use close combat spearmen, use close combat cavalry, use siege weapons early on, use champions. In short, I have to do a lot more and make a lot more decisions to get the same result. While archer civilizations can play standard and do not have to pay attention to a hard Unit counter. At the moment I don't have constant use for javelin units (main ranged economic unit) and would find a buff e.g. bringing back the higher walking speed, higher HP or other changes good. Furthermore, I would find opportunities to hit the economy of archery civilizations good. If melee spear units can capture towers more easily, that would reduce tower spam. Everything that reduces entrenchment in the area and makes the economy more attackable, I think it's good. Weakening archers a bit would be ok too.
  • Create New...