Atrik

You also said last time that when fort gave territory root, game was lame because it was forcing a player to spend even more time ramming all of the enemy's base. I'm pretty sure that this desire to have "stronger" defensive buildings is a bias, and that once I will be the case, it be lame and stall games. Defensive strategies should be viable (as is currently), not de-facto guaranteed to all players who built a fort to get their hero in the first place. I already know there is nothing I can do to convince players of theses facts. We'll have to go through a cycle of making defenses op again for some to realize them.

Yes, definitively, more so, stronger and faster units should have also greater weaknesses. Agree with this too. I guess the difficult part is find the right balance to avoid encouraging turtling too much I think players say that because they expect turtling to be : "build a fort then you are safe". Turtling this alpha is a tone of fun and it's balanced. The attacker CAN make progress, and you have to think of your defenses as layers, instead of just relying on just having invested a very low amount of resources that would make you immune forever to attacks. Defending should be dynamic (and this alpha, it kinda was). There would be 0 fun if any players could just set up a base with a fort with swords garrisoned and a couple towers, and be rewarded with immunity without him having to do more. I would point out that defenses are really cheap and currently are already very easy to make worth their cost: A single tower can have 25+ kills over the course a game very easily. A fort with 80+ kills is common. A tower cost 200 resource or 2 CS, a fort 900 resource or 9 CS. Obviously not weak at all.

Snowballing happens when there is no diminishing return on something you can accumulate, like champions. Champions are also more resource efficient then their CS counterpart, as well as population efficient. There are no diminishing return with them, quite the opposite. Fast melee champions units have no counters, and can hardly be "outplayed" because they can pick battles they want, therefor securing an advantage you have with them is easy. Fast units contribute more to map control, therefore it is harder to recover if the enemy can just easily find and crush anything you try to rebuild. There is almost no limit to how much strength you can coil up with champions, as you replace workers / CS with champions, your strength can grow despite the population limit. The players that do play on snowballing don't send their CS to battle, they keep them on eco and replace them (even delete them) with fast units, be it champ cav, or cav. That makes me say that CS as workforce don't contribute to snowballing, instead they often provide an opportunity for defenders to keep eco, while the attacker is losing an opportunity cost of moving his army around. Turtling is often done like this : build forward defenses, force the enemy to move his army and waste time on defenses, while you keep doing eco with most of your population; therefore you can catch up with any economic disadvantage you had.

Not sure 0ad is having too much of a snowballing problem. The only case where it does feel like being the case this alpha is with fast, strong, cheap, melee units like champ spear cav and fanatics, because they have no counters and counter everything themselves.

Reminds me of errors I had when pulling without git lfs. If you pulled without git lfs, try again with it maybe.

No, I feel like I remember this too. I think even when you were building something, workers would go repair nearby building once done too. Not so long ago then, I joined in a26.

Ah, I was wrong indeed, thanks @Mentula, the items margins aren't calculated dynamically relative to the containers size. Unlikely that you want to create proxies to re-overwrite them thoughts, if you changed them or if there is a issue with the icon size, better fix it.

Hi @Adriano0ad, I'm guessing what you mean is that you resized the panel and now you want icons to fit better in the panel. The spacing is calculated dynamically so you should only have to increase the number of items per row. In the selection_panels.js for example : g_SelectionPanels.Construction = { "getMaxNumberOfItems": function() { return 40 - getNumberOfRightPanelButtons(); }, "rowLength": 10, // <<<< INCREASE THIS NUMBER to 12 for example "getItems": function() { ...

I agree that it make things a bit weird. For capture also I don't like that currently, if for example you surround a building with walls/palisades, a tiny breach is enough for the enemy to fit 80 units capturing. However that would hold true if capture stay at is, which won't be the case. Next release you just ring the bell and females will be enough to prevent enemy from capturing. Back to the meta where nothing happens before min 15....

Would be op. I would rly much would like to give a try to introduce this, along with other formation improvements like 'flexible' formations. If this PR get in (kindof a prerequisite), one of the two above would be the next thing I'll try to do.

Ah yes true, ideally it would also need to point out what classes it affects.

Obviously, won't affect own units, but enemy units. It's a damage trickle. https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/src/commit/7452bf882fe15fc7c36e29761d3bb7390efefc87/binaries/data/mods/public/simulation/data/auras/units/germ_seer_1.json I though that the description was auto-generated. This isn't the case, so we could actually make it less confusing, like "Enemies : -2 health per second."

Yes in => https://wildfiregames.com/forum/forum/448-delenda-est/

An enemy already cannot hold a sentry tower in your territory, unless putting hero or champs inside, the tower will decay and return to you. So basically the only way to please you in this case would be to increase building decay. In previous alphas, towers with 5 guys inside almost couldn't ever be captured. But that worked both ways. And it was silly. A garrisoned tower in your territory could not be captured unless a very unreasonable effort was made to do so by your opponent, but if ever he did capture it (for example you forgot to garrison it and enemy took it), you would never get it back unless you ram it down first. Since so much players have a hard time managing to defend their buildings, I would have suggested to do something that increase capture point, instead of capture regeneration. It's very different because increasing capture point is only slowing the capturing of buildings, while capture regeneration have a exponential effect that leads into buildings being not capturable. Here are some ideas as a middle ground: Sentry (Tower tech) => +50% arrows and +50% capture points for towers Professional Garrison (Fort tech) => +100% arrows and +100% capture points for forts CCs 2500 => 3000 base capture points. I've saw so much capture CC fails this alpha I don't know why some players still think buildings are too easy to capture. It's just different as you need to garrison it with best units and protect your CC more then using it as if it was actually a fort.

A tower cost 200 resources, same as 2 infantry, we'll take account build time and say 3 infantry... Considering this, you can see why building a tower SHOULDNT be too strong as to for the enemy spend excessive time to take it out. When the building balance is making buildings too strong, then game stalls and it's boring. Which is why this alpha (a27) is refreshing because building are balanced. We can make the same comparison we did with towers with other buildings like CC and forts both as costly as 9 infantry. Yet a CC even being easier to capture now can score 80 kills as I often witness in games, and forts even more (100 not being uncommon even saw 169 once). The towers enemy capture in your own territory, decay 10 capture point/sec iirc, so recapturing them is actually much more at the advantage of the original owner. Next alpha, CC and forts will be back at being almost impossible to capture, which I regret because it will close strategic options, forcing players to always go for rams, even when you only need to defeat a naked CC. But I guess the majority of people think that's how it should be..