real_tabasco_sauce

super cool @ffm2

well, yeah i recognize its a bit divisive. instead, i think hack armor tweaks are the best way forward at least for the time being.

The blue is better and the red is more associated with stopping something. Before, it was maybe seen as good vs bad.

welcome to the forum! I agree with the speed point. Cavalry are supposed to be faster than infantry but they don't need to be that much faster. What I would like is actually just to delete the cav speed tech (and for that matter the general cav HP tech). These technologies are so cheap that they basically serve as a direct buff to the late game stats of cavalry. Early on, they conflict with the actual training of cavalry. However, I know this point is controversial. Now about the com mod in general, the melee/ranged rebalance does give champ melee cavalry more damage, but it handles all melee units equally in that regard. The issue with champ cav in vanilla is that they are shockingly tanky and pretty much the only way to lose a lot of persian, seleucid, or roman champs is to either take a losing fight like you mentioned or to be forced to take the fight. Seleucid champs in vanilla: 400 hp, 15 hack, 14 pierce armor w/ hero while doing less damage than an infantry skirmisher. They have almost as much hack armor as a stable or barracks: about 9% more hack damage than a stable (88% vs 79% resistance). Also, a possible reason the champs lost is the player failed to make lots of skirm cav in order to deal damage (CS skirm cav deal much more damage than champ melee cav, 29% more damage). in vanilla, champs are extremely tanky, acting like a damage sponge so these skirm cav are very protected and are free to do tons of damage. While changes in damage are very easy to apply across unit types, armor is not. Because it is discrete, there were probably cases where the ideal armor values were not reached. So, if something should be changed, i'd suggest to decrease champ cav armor values. Decreasing hack armor in particular serves to lessen sword units' near irrelevance to melee champ cav, and will compound nicely with the existing cav multiplier for spearmen possible meaning no change to the counter value is needed.

I am the copyright holder of original works I post in the Wildfire Games 0 A.D. Art Development forum. I hereby release all original works I uploaded to this forum in the past, and those I will upload in the future, under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.

The current pack/unpack icons are very similar to each other and it makes it difficult to recognize quickly what button does what: The issue is that the buttons contain very similar colors and shapes. Oftentimes when I notice bolts doing something I didn't intend, I try to use these buttons to ensure they are unpacked only to accidentally hit "pack". These are what I proposed for unpack and pack: I think they are much better distinguished, with both very different shapes and colors. Thoughts? On a side note, at some point, I think it would be a good idea to throw out the "cancel" button entirely, since clicking "pack" while unpacking would intuitively cancel the unpacking action.

Buildings may actually be hacked down fairly easily. A pierce armor decrease could be explored tho.

I agree that attack by default is more familiar to the RTS player. maybe we also will get more widespread feedback from the RC and can make a change based on that. Perhaps a setting could be the ultimate solution.

I guess the size isn't really that bad. The main issue is how similar it is to the arsenal. Buildings are meant to be quickly recognizable. If you want to go ahead and try, I think these are the files you need: I suppose a simple way to go about it would be something like this: @wowgetoffyourcellphone came up with this prototype:

That’s interesting that the cases involved multiple instances.

Disconnecting is pretty common when players have spotty internet or otherwise poor connection. It could also be crashes, or restarting to fix errors.

So its 500bc to "0ad" with some fairly lenient exceptions, like Boudica.

Actually for the Germans, the biggest issue is the market. We have suffficient props to make the units look different and even unique. It’s by no means game breaking, but the current market is really too large and visually similar to the arsenal building. If you would like to work on buildings, @wowgetoffyourcellphone could point you in the right direction, although I think some difficulties arose last time it was worked on.

I don't think there is enough agreement here to move forward with the forge changes directly into a27. As I said in my previous post, I think we should make the com mod in a27 more experimental. More frequent releases with a small-ish number of ideas to test in each one, then we start with a clean slate each time. We could test a lot more ideas more quickly and get decent community involvement since the mod is very available. And we can try really big ideas that might have been too risky with the current setup.

Well, at first i had the docks, but they are quite hard to place consistently and nicely for the stronghold and river placements. At the same time there is enough wood on each starting island that getting a dock is not a problem. After I removed the docks entirely, I think it was a good decision because of pathing and because dock timing is relevant to gameplay. The docks of course are still there for "land grab" because you often want to get ships very fast in that map.

Limit of 8 centurions at the moment

Foothills, I guess, is pretty easily tested, since you can check it out in the com mod. My 3rd map is just now ready for merging: https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/pulls/7225 It is an update to migration, with the previous version being renamed to "Land Grab". The big idea for the updated migration is flexibility. This style of map has produced some really awesome games in high level aoe2. With the island splitting teams and players, it is more natural to contest it. Larger islands also mean players can move to take the middle island early or focus on booming or water control and then try to take the middle to win in the long run. The map is quite balanced, with the starting woodlines having very similar total wood count, and each player has good access to fish. in the central island, resources can generate close to the shore, so ships may be used to deny resources. Lastly, the map supports 3 different placement options, which have dramatic consequences for how the map may be played.

Well, there is a topic for the roman reforms, but I'll make it brief. For historical accuracy, we cannot have extraordinarius in the post-reform roster. The reforms are meant to change the gameplay somewhat, but not completely switch the civ out for something else. Unlocking onagers, training centurions, and unlocking legionaries are certainly enough changes for one tech to accomplish. Therefore, in order to preserve other units and improve the look of the reforms tech, units should be reskinned with their post reforms counterparts. Its a way to add some cool factor and try and maintain historical accuracy without completely rearranging the gameplay.

I recognize its not ideal for one's champs to be downgraded to swords. We will find a good reskin for the extraordinarius.

Promotion is the best means for a tech to convert a unit into another unit. U can see this with the mace silver shields. In this case, since the champ swords are supposed to be unavailable after the tech for historical reasons, they convert to legionaries. however, I think for the final version of the Marian reforms, it would be better to do a reskin approach like what is done for the CS cavalry units.

Well, in general, i think the community mod has been good for a26, especially since it fixed a couple of issues with the base game such as the han farm techs not working. However, because of the division it created, I'd like to suggest a bit of a different approach for the next alpha: Each version should be a clean slate. This way each version is an opportunity to test some new ideas or balance, and the successes of one version do not become pressure on the subsequent versions to be perfectly balanced. I expect this will result in less regular use of the community mod, which means players will mainly play together on the base game, resulting in less division. This approach is also more friendly to more experimental ideas, which are currently somewhat avoided in order to avoid "ruining" the com mod. Some of my experimental ideas are an infantry balance where melee units are generally faster than ranged units, with exceptions, and the introduction of a laborer economic unit to tackle the booming = turtle topic.

Yes, to an extent. However, the situation where melee infantry units die first is still present.

Well somewhere in the gui, it’s looking for the literal name “Default” to be the default map filter. the new categories result in “Demo” being the default for both skirmish and random maps, so I tried to fix that for an hour. In doing so I mistakenly reset, losing my uncommitted changes. upon realizing what it would take to re do everything, I realized that the juice isn’t worth the squeeze. im much better off getting my 3 new maps out the door and then doing spot checks on a few high potential maps (improving wood, balance, ie sryia, Persian highlands)

Yeah trade is awkward. On most maps, it’s not worth it, but on maps where trade is good, it’s almost guaranteed that the better or faster trade wins the game. It might be good to make them a bit easier to take down if they do end up getting buffed.

What about utilizing stone cost for the forge? something like 200 wood, 50 or 100 stone. i think this could be interesting as it brings a bit more opportunity cost into the picture since mining techs, production buildings, and clicking up also cost stone. It would also make the no stone build for Gauls less strong.