guerringuerrin

With this new paragraph you added, I realize I misinterpreted your first message. It seems like this is something that could be addressed by increasing the base capture resistance of buildings/ships. The dynamic you’re proposing sounds interesting for certain gameplay contexts, especially in single-player/campaigns, and perhaps even multiplayer matches on “thematic maps” (scenarios). I think this touches on something we haven’t explored much: the possibility of having different balances and mechanics depending on the game mode (single-player, campaigns, thematic maps, multiplayer). Of course, it’s important to keep in mind that this would increase both the amount and complexity of the work, and available manpower is limited.

I think it's a good thing that siege units are required to break walls. In fact, I support making building capture more difficult. The same applies to towers, which are currently too easy to capture—especially due to formation capture behavior, where an absurd number of units can overlap, allowing buildings to be captured in a very small space at an excessively fast rate. Building capture itself is not a flaw; it just needs refinement. It’s one of the game’s original mechanics, and we should stop trying to homogenize the game with others. Instead, polishing its unique aspects will make 0 A.D. even more distinctive. Yes, turtling is a valid playstyle (albeit a boring and somewhat lame one), and it’s already viable—you just have to execute it properly. I also think that making capture more difficult would make it even more effective. However, making walls cheaper and faster to build would only encourage this dynamic, which, while valid, would significantly harm multiplayer matches. It also depends heavily on the map. On closed maps with chokepoints and natural boundaries, turtling is already quite effective. On Ambush Nomad, for example, when playing with Wonder victory, turtling is very common and effective. So I don’t think it’s impossible—I just wouldn’t encourage it.

well I don't think they have a long building time anyways

idk. @Atrik made good improvements with snapings walls that will be probably in the next realease, and are cool. But boosting their building time or things like that. I guess is just a matter of tastes. I find turtling/defensive playstyles very boring

You can't boost walls too much or you will encourage turtling playstyle, which kinda suck for multiplayer. Also, roads might be a good feature for a mod focused on city builder or a more economic, design city gameplay. For and RTS i think is a bit too much

Yes, following the standard currently used in 0 A.D. and this proposal, it should be: Unlocks "Scale Body Armor". I also think an elegant way to remove the quotation marks would be to use color to highlight the name of the unlocked technology. In this thread (which I finally found, bc we went totally offtopic ), @Atrik and I were discussing different designs for unit stats tooltips:

I don't know. But, you could check how is done in this mods: https://github.com/JustusAvramenko/delenda_est Or maybe @Emacz can help you with that =)

@wowgetoffyourcellphone I think the information is much better structured now. I also like that you added the large image. It’s a detail that, to me, adds a lot of “personality” (after all, it’s the only visual element representing the “object”). I understand that the bullet point follows a consistent logic, listing in an orderly way the elements the technology unlocks. However, personally, I would still prefer to remove at least the bold formatting from “Unlocks Scale Body Armor.” This way, what stands out more immediately would be the most important aspect of the technology: the military bonuses it provides. I also think placing the cost at the top is a good choice. And the increased line spacing greatly improves readability. Good job!

I can’t really tell you. I’ve never modded unit/civ templates. But if I were to do it, I think I’d start by looking at how a civ’s files are structured here: https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/src/branch/main/binaries/data/mods/public/simulation/templates

Share your channels to watch it and suscribe!

It might be somewhat arbitrary, but I’ll share my suggestions with you: I like having bullet points at the beginning of each upgrade description and I’d try increasing the font size of the bonuses granted. I wouldn’t use bullet points for “Unlocks…” nor bold text—I don’t think that’s information that needs to be emphasized. And I'd try leaving an empty line between the bonuses and "Unlocks".... Is there any reason to separate Cavalry from Infantry?

Now do it for every building with aura and PR

Yes, only for civilians.

Is intended for hide civilians. If you remove them from storehouses you might not be able to garrison your civilians chopping woods. I think the current behavior is good Yeah and is nice bc u those bells will garrison your choppers, keeping the farms gathering.

If you don’t know how, here are some basics to get you started.

(If you haven't already) the best thing you can do is try it and draw your own conclusions.

I don’t agree with this. There are different cases of this. Calculating the exact batch size for your available resources isn’t instantaneous to begin with and it changes over time. (besides 3–5 seconds in the heat of a battle is a long time). Also, we know the vanilla system is buggy so you end up with some barracks having long queues while others sit idle, and figuring out which one is idle takes time. Even when using auto-queue. All of that adds up. ModernGUI does this instantly everytime. No -or almost no- mistakes. Finally, there’s the issue of awareness: the human mind forgets things, and the more elements it has to keep track of, the more likely it is to make mistakes or forget to perform certain tasks and that all adds up over time.

Sure, I understand you. I also don’t think that arguing “learn to play” contributes much. For me, the key point of the discussion is how to reach a consensus—how to bring both “playstyles” closer together without pushing everything to extremes. And I’d like to elaborate a bit on this so you understand what I mean. There’s a big difference between allowing the queue to resume once resources are available and a mod that assigns batches of units sized exactly to fit each building automatically and at instant speed. Moreover, the mod in question (ModernGUI) doesn’t simply leave a preassigned production queue; as a player, you can choose the composition of your army—for example: 40% javelineers, 40% pikemen, and 20% cavalry—and the mod will produce units in batches, assigning them to the queue just 1–2 seconds before the currently produced unit finishes. This also optimizes resource usage, since you keep them available until that exact moment. Then, if you run out of resources because you used them elsewhere, as soon as you have resources again, the mod automatically resumes production. Of course, there are caveats—you can’t say it’s perfect. Additionally, the mod includes some very interesting GUI improvements that, in my opinion, would be very positive to incorporate into vanilla. In other words, for me this isn’t a black-and-white issue. It’s true that the vanilla 0 A.D. system has some fairly clear functional bugs, and there is ongoing work to improve them. If you haven’t tried the mod already, I invite you to try it yourself so you can compare it with what I’m saying. Sure—against the AI, use whatever mod you like. Personally, I find it frustrating to lose a match to someone and then realize they were using this mod. There’s also been a lot of discussion about transparency—whether people should disclose when they’re using it. And in my experience, until you watch a replay and notice it yourself, players usually don’t tell you. It’s true that many people aren’t deliberately hiding it. In my experience, most players who use the mod don’t feel like they’re cheating; they just enjoy the game more that way. Some at least acknowledge that it helps them play better; others argue they would play just as well and that they simply find it boring otherwise—something I personally find very hard to believe, since the advantages of this training system seem quite obvious to me. That said, it’s natural that someone who doesn’t use that mod and plays against someone who does might feel it’s unfair. It’s humanly impossible for a player not using the mod to perform all the tasks that someone using it can, especially in battle scenarios where, while one player has to manage unit production, the other can keep clicking in combat while the barracks are practically producing on their own—as long as you have houses and resources, it will keep going. In other words, one player can focus on microing units in battle, while the other also has to deal with barracks micromanagement. And you might say these are just different schools of play, different preferences. Fair enough—but in multiplayer, when you’re facing another human who has these advantages, it’s natural that someone might feel frustrated or that it isn’t fair. This thread mixes many different issues. That’s why I asked whether you really knew what kind of automation was being discussed, and to what extent that automation goes. It’s not a minor debate. And even if the multiplayer community is a minority, let me say that it’s a very active one, and many people who actively contribute to the game’s development are part of it. Moreover, I think the multiplayer aspect should not be minimized at all—considering that this is an RTS, it’s only natural that it carries a certain weight. Sorry for the length of my response. I’m terrible at summarizing my ideas. At the same time, it felt more practical to just dump this whole rant at once rather than go little by little, haha.

I’m not sure whether you’re aware of what kind of automation is actually being discussed. I agree that you can’t really say one thing is better than another, or that one approach is “how it should be” and the other isn’t. In the end, it comes down to consensus about what a community wants or accepts as valid and what it doesn’t. The case of AoE2 is quite illustrative: a feature like 0 A.D.’s vanilla auto-queue is considered cheating in the multiplayer scene. Is that right or wrong? That’s not really the point. The real question is whether there is a broad consensus around one gameplay mechanic or another. The issue is that, when playing against a human opponent, the sense of fair play matters. Whether certain features are accepted or not is part of an ongoing discussion and a necessary consensus in any community. This debate has been going on for years and has been approached in different ways. Some have led to a good, inclusive understanding despite disagreements. In other cases, things like this happen, where someone shows up out of nowhere and starts treating everyone like id**ts, and nothing productive can come out of that.

Yes, I think this behavior is quite appropriate. And I don’t think it’s worth over-optimizing this behavior. If there are no nearby buildings to garrison in, having units stay idle where they are seems like the most appropriate outcome. Players should be responsible for ensuring there are enough nearby buildings for units to take shelter. Otherwise, keeping them idle is actually helpful, since it makes it easier to quickly select them using the idle hotkey. Short video of this. I don’t see any civilians switching resources after the bell. Not even those who garrison in buildings with rally points set to other resources. ringbell.mp4

I’ve noticed that when there are no buildings available for garrison, civilians just stay idle where they are. However, I haven’t verified whether this happens because there are no buildings close enough for them to detect, or because there are no available buildings at all. What I’m fairly sure about is that units do not switch to gathering a different resource. In other words, if they were farming, they will try to resume farming rather than moving to gather wood.

I never seen this before. It might be worth to test it

Forbidden thread!! I’d love to see what’s inside Wasn’t there rot in A23? I think I remember seeing it in some earlier version. I imagine the balance team must have some explanation. Same for the capturing siege feature From my POV, it would make sense to reintroduce rotting

Nah, they kinda suck atm. Except for some champion ones.

Well, no. A javelin throws javelins; a shortbow unit uses a bow and arrows. And my guess is a Javelineer would be slower than a shortbow archer bc higher carry weight?? Answering to both of you here: Nah I didn't even check this. I was just following the logic of what Thalatta said here: But probably misunderstood the logic and he was talking about the arrow deal more/less damage depending target distance... To be honest, I’m not very interested in realism or historical accuracy, and I don’t know much about it so I leave that to those who do. I’m more interested in gameplay. And I’d be willing to sacrifice historical accuracy to prioritize gameplay, variety, and so on. But I’m not trying to argue anything (just to be clear). In general, archers feel quite weak in the latest alphas and also lack variety, with the exception of some champion archers. So I guess my "proposal" would be that A shortbow could have higher dexterity and a faster attack speed (with less damage, based on what I now understand), while a longbow could be slower but have greater range and deal more damage.