real_tabasco_sauce

Hi @kennethmartin I am sure others will welcome you and get you up to speed, but I figured I would share you a few helpful links. This is where you can see all the tickets: https://trac.wildfiregames.com/report/3 How to build the latest revision https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/BuildInstructions Writing patches with svn https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/SubmittingPatches phabricator: https://code.wildfiregames.com/

Right now the issue with garrisoning walls it you cannot get enough units up there to make a difference. No matter how strong the buff is, they will still be hugely outnumbered. With this in mind, I already doubled the garrison space on walls so that this approach can be much more effective. https://code.wildfiregames.com/rP27527 It also looks much cooler. I see the discussion on the wall protection and I have thought about this before, for example to restrict ranged attacks that can pass walls. However, this can be a pretty complex problem. For some of the above suggestions, the wall would need to have a 'direction' whereas they currently don't have one. So you can imagine the user accidentally placing the walls inside out and causing issues. I believe aoe4 does things like this but i'm not sure how successful that was. Potentially one option could be to restrict certain attack types over stone walls for any player, but even then there would be so many cases to take care of: would you make projectiles collide with the walls so that harmless arrows don't hit their targets? Would you make ranged units try to path around the wall when tasked to attack a unit inside? Would you make units within the walls unavailable for units to attack? It is intricate for sure. @gui456wSERTDYF were your walls stone walls or just palisades that were destroyed so quickly? Were you playing as the mauryans with stone walls? They have much cheaper but also weaker wooden walls. In general I think stone walls stay up for the right amount of time vs non-siege units, and that maybe palisades are a tiny bit too weak vs sword cavalry.

to be fair, my browser thumbnails look pretty great. Maybe google already knows what I want XD

I said 'bad idea' because letting the fish be infinite and significantly faster than farming would basically guarantee a player's victory if they have a 'safe' fishing source and their opponent doesn't. There should be a need to transition to farms at some point, or reach for more distant and dangerous fish.

I think it could be possible to avoid the 'death' of the resource and let it reach 0. That way the fishing rate would be limited to the regen rate. One could even make a fish_depleted model where there are fewer fish in the water and only 1 bird circling above.

I could just eliminate the small metal mines, and just keep the small stone ones. I see, in that case, I could increase the separation a good bit. You will still be able to access both with a cc of course just because of how much territory a cc has, but you won't be able to have both wood and the mines right next to the cc for protection.

Ok I "managed" to add stronghold, both circle placements, river placement, and grouped lines which is nice.

map_placement.zip This has all the placement options on the random maps, and also contains the new migration as well as the Coast Range map. For coast range, there is a bug with a couple of the biomes, so just use subalpine for the time being.

The nice thing is this will also work with the 'Grouped lines' placement option, and probably the stronghold team placement. The Circle and Alternating circles could work if there was an approach to convert the circle to an oval and align the teams to either side.

Personally, I am a fan of the chopping sounds.

Hi all, After my enjoyment of 'hyrcannian shores' which is a nice hybrid (water+land) map, I decided to make something a little similar. Coast Range is a hybrid map with players placed in the middle with forests, food and some small rolling hills. The nearby sea has plenty of fish, but on the other side, a plateau rises from the hills with plenty of metal and stone, but no forests and no food. There is stone and metal among the middle, 'rolling hills' section, but it is only the small stone and metal mines. There's a couple additional things I'd like to do: 1. Make the coast a little more beach-like. 2.Give the plateau a little variation. It looks too straight. Any other suggestions?

Basically, the goal of 0ad is not to simulate. There are other games that do this extremely well. Adding details like the population needing a trickle of food, or buildings needing wood/stone for 'maintenance' is a detail that need not be simulated. In my opinion, this will only result in annoyance and inconsistency. What I mean by inconsistency is if we try our best to simulate some detail like the operational costs of the city, but keep other things abstracted, it results in a contradiction.

admittedly i only watched the last one but the civ design/balance decisions seem very questionable.

Yeah, I already have siege and building's hack armor adjusted to essentially cancel out the 50% increase in melee damage. So the time it takes for melee units to kill buildings and siege is the same.

Also I feel like many modern games would just call what we have a live service and charge a fee for each update.

Its a pretty huge advantage for maury, but it is part of the civ's balance.

essentially, yes. The armor reduction on melee is supposed to roughly match the -25% ranged damage. This way melee units do more damage to melee units + ranged units, but also take more damage from only melee units. The move speed change may or may not be needed.

I wish I was there for that lol

I would be more concerned with losing a lot of consistency and predictability in fights if %HP affected damage. I feel like its one of those details that need not be simulated in a game. To be honest, I think this will not be an issue at all after when melee/range damage is balanced.

So @vinme basically the damage for ranged units is much higher across the board, while to balance this high damage, melee units currently just have a lot of armor so they last longer. The reason they rarely rank up is because they do so little damage. Basically my rebalance patch is as follows: melee units +50% damage ranged units -25% damage melee units less armor (ex 3h 3p instead of 5h 5p for spearman) melee units +.5 m/s walk speed overall, this will push melee units into a more exciting damage-dealing role rather than being more of a damage sponge.

@wraitii If you feel overworked, I'd be happy to head up the community mod. That is if you could show me how to do a few things.

To an extent. However, having too much of a micro creates a huge barrier of entry for new players to be competitive. Do we want to discourage or encourage new players? I think if something can be automated for an unfair advantage it should be considered for a feature included in the game - especially if it can be "silent" and not take away from the experience. Clicking like a madman, imho, takes away from the experience. Lets take the discussion here @alre, @Dizaka. @alre Currently sniping is useful in roughly 80% of large battles. With balance changes, I can make this number about 5% to 10%, allowing for other ways for players to make their battles more fruitful (aka micro). This is a far better solution that removing the ability to control one unit of a selection at a time. @Dizaka it is not important "how much" micro there is, but instead how impactful the micro that is. Basically the core "skill pyramid" might look something like this: Economy: the ability to control your economy and maintain production is a player's bread and butter. This is the most fundamental skill, and just about all middle-tier players should be quite good at this. Very good players still improve here with damage control. Military Composition and Game knowledge: This is where your knowledge of civ strengths and weakness comes in, as well as unit roles, strengths, and weaknesses. If you know the capabilities of the enemy and you have scouted to see what units they are getting, you have a chance to use game knowledge to counter their move. Timing and positioning: Making choices on the 'when' to attack and the 'where' to attack are pretty important, just as the 'when' and 'where' to build a fort or when to age up. Do you charge straight into a very defensible position? do you look for a weaker spot to attack? Do you wait to mass your units, or dive right into a fight? Micro: When in a fight, you want to control units based on unit characteristics. Flanking, retreating wounded units, targeting the weaker enemy units, protecting vulnerable units, encircling units, spreading units out, and formation control are all means for one's micro skills to take effect in a fight. This is the top of the pyramid, as it is the hardest to learn and makes the least difference. @Dizaka in no way is micro a barrier for entry for new players. Getting a feel for the economy and basic strategy is the skill gap for new players. The fact of the matter is it takes a long time to learn how to play 0ad very well, to get all the levels of the pyramid. If a player that has all of these tools at their disposal beats a new player, how is that a barrier for entry? The only way that discourages new players is if those new players think they should expect to win. if you start to remove (aka automate) layers of this pyramid, you have essentially less content. Less decisions to make, less choices, and less tools at your disposal to beat the enemy, no matter how small. In other words the game would be more formulaic and less fun, with the impact of random chance becoming more impactful. I think the area that 0ad stands the most to gain here is level 2. I think more upgrades, civs, and units, we could see more interesting strategy.

Well, it should exist, it just shouldn't be the only worthwhile micro. Instead, it should be a tool in one's skillset that depends on the conditions of a given fight. Balance is the way to fix this.

Well, it all works for a26 at least. If you have time, it probably wouldn't be too hard to update. If not, I'll figure out how to send a pull request your way.

Since the sole role of leadership seems very taxing, I wonder if a leadership 'committee' would be better suited for a project like this. There could be 3 (or more) positions: Engine development lead, Multiplayer and lobby lead, Volunteer organization lead, and/or maybe outreach and public relations lead.