real_tabasco_sauce

does it include heroes? Imagine spontaneous defeat in regicide XD

haha, restrict it to units and call it "plague" mod. could also increase likeliness of death for idle units, call it obesity mod.

I would say this is ideal as simply an indicator of something taking fire damage. 1. allowing the fire gaia entities to deal damage and spread to other units is in conflict with the existing role of fire damage. 2 concurrent fire systems would be confusing. 2. Starting a forest fire might sound cool on paper, but remember there is only 1 unit that can do this, and it would be incredibly annoying to destroy all your enemy's forests. Basically griefing on steriods. 3. This kind of damage model for fire (spreads between units, ship, buildings and trees) is quite hard to balance and also hard to reconcile in comparison to other mechanics of the game. It seems out of place in other words.

Its not really a build, but a strategy. A very funny strategy. But you are right, it has to be successful or else gg. A success would be destroying the cc and at least fairing well enough against your enemy's forces. If they have enough army and beat you, they can win by immediately attacking u lol.

I find it amusing how, with the resources at their disposal, they made such a graphically terrible game. 0ad outdoes AOE4 by a mile in this regard. Allegedly, you have to play with graphics on low if you want good performance too.

Probably not the level of differentiation you are calling for, but these are two upgrades I designed for slingers. Slinger 1: "Lead Shot" P2 30% more pierce damage 25% more crush damage 20% longer repeat time. Slinger 2: "Longer slings" P3 +5 Range 10% longer prepare time

A really epic move (especially if your enemy has gauls or britons, weak buildings) is to quickly go to phase two, build a noba camp or two, and add clubmen and pikemen. About 20 clubmen is more than enough to destroy the enemy cc. Adding pikemen increases the durability of this group, while archers can sit back and kill the units stopping the clubmen. If you want more mercenaries than the 20 clubs, you can also get the noba skirmishers which are quite good. This can be done really early, but its best at around 9 to 10 minutes. It likely won't work in the late game when both players are full pop.

@Yekaterina 1v1 vs @LetswaveaBook

I agree. To an extent, all melee except for swordsmen and sword cavalry seem like clown units. The "meat shield" meta has 2 parts: melee units are too tanky, melee units deal very little damage (compared to range).

My community mod proposal (the unit upgrades) adds to this differentiation. Currently their primary differentiation is range vs damage, but the accuracies are also at play. I think the ranges are good for now. Changing melee stats as planned in the community mod (much more damage, a little less armor) will probably have an effect on the roles of skirms slingers and archers in fights, so I would like to see the results of that first.

Well, I think scenario editor and exit should be separate from a dropdown. For 1) its not really an "Option", whereas mod selection, language, and settings are all "options". Also, players wishing to leave shouldn't have to do more than one click to leave. I had something like this in mind: Clearing the middle up allows making the top bar and 0ad logo a bit larger too, which is good imo. "exit" and "Scenario editor" can be a different font and color. They can also be vertically stacked next to the wfg logo so that the symmetry at the top is effectively unchanged.

https://gitlab.com/real_tabasco_sauce/0-a-d-community-mod-unit-specific-upgrades/-/compare/main...buildingai2?from_project_id=36954588&straight=false It will need to be rebased when the a27 community mod is live, but this is the branch for building arrows. My hope is that in the first release, it can be merged alongside unit upgrades (https://gitlab.com/real_tabasco_sauce/0-a-d-community-mod-unit-specific-upgrades/-/compare/main...unit_upgrades?from_project_id=36954588&straight=false) and a melee damage and armor adjustment. These three would be pretty big changes, but the idea is they need long term playtesting and any necessary adjustments can be made in following community mod versions.

yep, this is the case, and I was able to figure out the issue. I guess thinking out loud helps lol.

It seems to me that if the preferred class length is 1 (['Humans']), then the only possible preference value is 0 or undefined, where humans get 0 and anything else gets undefined.

is someone familiar with preference values from GetPreference() in Attack.js? It's not clear if values are ascending with increased priority or descending. For instance, my guess is that a tower with a preference class of ['Human'] will give humans a preference of 0 and anything else a preference of 1, but maybe this is wrong.

So @maroder I saw your point about the dropdown menu not being "drop-up" menus, and I agree. However, the placement debate remains, especially if you ever want to add the vanilla backgrounds to the mod. (not sure if there are other constraints here) one solution is to group mod selection, hotkeys, language, and options(settings) underneath a new large dropdown called "options". I would say options is on a similar level of importance as "learn to play" "Single Player" and "Multiplayer". This way, with 4 items, you can have symmetry around the 0ad logo at the top, and leave space for the backgrounds in the middle of the screen. The last thing to consider then is where to put "scenario editor" and "exit". It would make sense to slide them both over to the top right, next to the WFG logo, since they both take you out of the game.

not a youtube video but a video nonetheless: Some users suggest that there are no "tactics" in 0ad, and that battles are too chaotic and fast for player inputs to make a difference. In this video, you can see why that’s not the case. Here @SaidRdz (black) has a moderate upgrade advantage, but is surrounded and quite outnumbered by Blue and red. All three players here are similar in 0ad experience, but @chrstgtr and @Isam f are behind due to a rush. saidOP.mp4 There are certainly tactics and strategic decisions made even in very large fights. The key is that they should be made quickly and precisely if you want to win.

It's the pillars right? The ones with pillars, like the forge in particular, seem slightly taller. I really like the style these buildings have, very cool!

Nah, every shyft account is identical. He logs on with some offensive name and within minutes, he says "donkey". He is too simple to maintain two personas.

The UI explains it well enough imo. If you want, you can just bind them both to the same hotkey.

Well, its kind of a strange thing to add, there are pros and cons. One point of concern is that a group of units can be in a "formation" but UnitAI can still move them out of it. What this means is that the formations bonus still applies even if the units are not in the shape of the formation. If the bonus only applies while they are in position, then it doesn't help melee units at all. I'm not saying the current behavior is bad necessarily, its just that its weird to have some effect even when the formation is effectively disbanded. If these are added, I think they would all have to be completely neutral tradeoffs, which would require some careful balancing. for example: wedge gets +10% damage but -50% acceleration.

No, that would just add another layer of complexity. @wowgetoffyourcellphone just described “March” as being another formation. I am still unsure if I support giving formations stats.

I'm not familiar. Is it degarrison unit and unit for the building to attack are the same? I guess that would be pretty logical, and no need for extra confusing hotkeys.

An easy way to make formations more useful would be to remove the "march" form for each formation. If I want my units to be in a formation, they should stay that way instead of organizing and reorganizing into a "march" just to move 100 meters.

Which do you mean? 1) currently in a26, 2) with the current proposal, or 3) with added user input to buildingAI arrows? I guess technically it is true for all of the above lol The thing is, players absolutely want to be able to degarrison their swords directly onto rams. Perhaps there will need to be some function(s) to distinguish building (or ship or siege tower) attack input from rally point input. @wowgetoffyourcellphone this will probably be needed for ships if they should function as units and as transport (unless transport is only as a non-fighting transport ship). For buildings, the default right click could be rally point and some hotkey (maybe force attack) could be used to target a unit in range. For ships and siege engines, IDK: maybe the same, or maybe the default should be attack, with some modifier to set the rally point.