real_tabasco_sauce
-
Posts
2.853 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
71
Posts posted by real_tabasco_sauce
-
-
7 minutes ago, TheCJ said:
If one wants to play a game without any mechanical challenge, one should maybe rather look at turn-based games.
100%
The division of attention and division of labor are key to RTS games. The player only has so many things that can be done at one time. This makes up a substantial portion of the skill curve, and it is very important that games have a skill curve to learn.
I think we just need to develop the strategic options available to players and high APM will become less strong relative to strategy.
-
1
-
-
Just throwing one idea out there: free and instant stone mining tech upon phase up.
The civ is quite stone heavy, so this could be nice. Also it could help justify going for late game compositions and not being forced to make mercs to feel competitive.
-
1
-
1
-
-
47 minutes ago, alre said:
just change captured buildings behavior. I swear, the biggest obstacle I can see to 0ad progression is bogus features that won't ever get corrected because some random dev likes them in spite of all reason.
Is that the biggest obstacle?
Honestly, I think all that needs to happen is to come up with a consistent scheme to determine what units are available from captured buildings.
-
do you have feedback for me @Carltonus @Classic-Burger?
-
At one time, a mod allowed automating unit teleportation. This meant buildings could be set up like roads across which women could travel extremely quickly. Likewise, barracks could quickly transport soldiers across long distances.
This isn't against the "Rules" as you describe, because you could technically do this, maybe if each turn was 10 seconds. Should this be considered cheating?
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, WiseKind said:
This game has so much potential, and I feel responsible for speaking out before the community takes this amazing project in the wrong direction in the name of fear and protecting the community against a frankly vacuous threat.
Its a tad strange that you call this threat "vacuous" and describe your concern for multiplayer when you haven't yet played it, but regardless, but I understand you come from open-source absolutist standpoint, so maybe that's it. I appreciate your interest in 0ad and I hope the multiplayer community is welcoming when you decide to check it out!
-
On 02/03/2025 at 1:15 PM, Arup said:
The guy above is straight up facts! #MMGA MAKE MINISTERS GREAT AGAIN!!
as far as I know, they have never been even close to good.
-
imo there should be an overhaul to add a system dedicated to turning one unit into another. It could address this, as well as the promotion 'hack', and stuff like https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/issues/7328
-
7 minutes ago, borg- said:
could we have bigger performance issues as well?
Probably less costs actually, since there would be less frequent range queries in typical fights, but my guess is it wouldn't be very noticeable.
-
1 minute ago, chrstgtr said:
I think the obvious improvement is just an overall unit health buff. It makes battles last longer, which is more satisfying, and makes retreating a bit easier, which I agree is needed
Yeah, I think this is the safest option (least knock-on effects).
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Seleucids said:14 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:
agree with a more cautious version of one of these.
Suggest values please
I was thinking like 1-2-2 or 2-2-2. I see now that you mean 1-2-3 should be the values (thought you wanted to increase each tech by this much). So, what you suggested might also be fine.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Seleucids said:
There is no possibility of retreating from a fight. If you retreat, you will loose everything. The amount of damage dealt while turning around and pathfinding outside enemy range is enough to kill the melee unit.
Keep in mind https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/issues/6946, which means some of your retreating units must stop after you give the order. So try to use just one order for your retreat to avoid this.
6 minutes ago, Seleucids said:1. Nerf the attack damage upgrades, especially cap the T3 to +1
2. Improve shield upgrades. Increase like +1 +2 +3 each tier.
I agree with a more cautious version of one of these.
7 minutes ago, Seleucids said:4. Default unit armour values:
- Spearman: 6 hack 6 pierce
- Swordsman: 6 hack 5.5 pierce
- Pikeman: 8 hack 10 pierce
This would throw us partially back into the meat shield meta.
I'd like to add a new item to your list of solutions:
5. Infantry speed values.
- generally, let melee infantry be faster than their ranged unit counterparts (except pikemen).
- This allows for potentially interesting balance considerations for ranged units
This is all stuff that we can play around with in the com mod, but I'd like to try and tackle the capture situation first.
-
unfortunately, I am not sure if the p2 and p3 mercs would show up in the structure tree.
-
1
-
-
sounds like the easiest solution is to promote the village merc into town merc with ~2000xp, then promote the town merc into the city merc with another ~2000xp, and then add a modification to set xp required for promotion to 0 to the phase up technologies.
you could add villageMerc, townMerc, and cityMerc classes as handles for the different modifications.
you could have an infantry p1 merc promote into a cavalryman in p2 with this approach just fine.
-
1
-
-
this is one of those areas where finding the right balance is good. Its probably not necessary to set in settings, but maybe the visual alert and audio alert can have separate suppression times. I think frequent visual alerts would be less annoying than frequent audio alerts.
-
2
-
-
-
3
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Seleucids said:
you need a sizeable number. Ive seen immortals take them down pretty effectively in the melee mode.
Rams are pretty good, you can garrison them for some extra speed. With swords inside, its pretty good.
Also, in many games you can take advantage of their extremely slow mobility by cutting losses and attacking other places/players.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Grautvornix said:
I have to admit that I like the proposal to add a fundamental switch if the game is played MP or SP.
8 hours ago, Stan` said:IMHO we should have a tech filter restricting some techs in MP.
Personally, I think campaigns could make up for some of the historical/realism lapses that are needed for good multiplayer gameplay, but the fundamental gameplay should be consistent between basic single player and multiplayer. Ideally, players learning in single player should help prepare them to go up against player opponents.
Campaigns could have special campaign-only units or abilities, but I think if someone sets up a single player match it should be the same gameplay as multiplayer.
-
2 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
I'd really like it if individual (non-shooting) wall joints (we call them towers currently) could be individually upgradeable to shooting towers.
There's no need.
Firstly, as others have said wall turrets shooting arrows was problematic because you could cram so many close together. It was also a bit of a buff for iber and just made for an annoyance even after an iberian player had been fully destroyed.
We have towers for arrow shooting, and walls for blocking movement. Let walls be walls and let towers be towers. Trying to blend gameplay mechanics like this is unnecessary and distracts from the actual gameplay purpose of these structures. I'm glad wall turret arrows were removed tbh.
-
1
-
-
Is this single player, multiplayer? In TGs? How are you controlling for different variables?
-
1
-
-
14 hours ago, chrstgtr said:
Spies needs a total rework. If it's most useful case is to find a lone fishing boat in the corner of the map after the game is all but officially over then it is a feature that shouldn't exist.
My idea recently was to turn it into a repeatedly researchable tech that temporarily reveals the location/vision of one/all of your enemy heroes.
So while it might not see use frequently, it still may be relevant in something like regicide.
-
1
-
-
yeah there are a few items from @Emacz's mod that fit with vanilla 0ad. We could certainly take inspiration from it and try things out. That's the beauty of the CTE approach.
-
2
-
-
3 minutes ago, Atrik said:
Does this mean no 'relaunch' are planned for a27?
no it won't disrupt work towards a potential re-release.
-
1
-
-
Ok, I have heard questions about this, so I'll answer here. We will do a community mod for a27, however there will be changes to how it works.
In a26, we had issues where the mod would split the multiplayer community into mod players and non-mod players. Also, because the mod fixed a couple of bugs, development on the mod was a constrained by the requirement that each change be a clear improvement. This hampered experimentation.
So the main change will be that each community mod version will be a clean slate, no changes from the last version will remain. What this means is that the mod serve the purpose of a "Community Test Environment", or CTE. Essentially, its a way for gameplay-oriented changes to be run by the community before being committed to the development version of 0ad.
My hope is that we can make release turnaround fairly quick, and test a lot of ideas. Players can certainly continue to submit PRs, but I'd like to invite developers to submit their gameplay-oriented PRs too.
Some stuff I hope to experiment with:
- capture vs destroy balance
- walls delete trees
- 3x cavalry counter
- added economic unit to address boom = turtle
- ship balance
- Improve Han gameplay
-
3
-
1
Some bonuses for Carthaginians?
in Gameplay Discussion
Posted
That would be wayyyy better than mace. You still have to pay for the mace techs.