Suggestions for 0 A.D.

[Lopess]

23 minutes ago, Edwarf said:

Haha yes, it's just ideas

There are some cool mods.

[Dakara]

get fat the icons of the building construction menu, as before

Aggrandir les icônes du menu de construction du bâtiment, comme auparavant

Edited April 24, 2021 by Dakara

[Lion.Kanzen]

25 minutes ago, Dakara said:

get fat the icons of the building construction menu, as before

Aggrandir les icônes du menu de construction du bâtiment, comme auparavant

More bigger?

[Dakara]

10 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

More bigger?

yes

[seeh]

 

[Player of 0AD]

- The working animations could be adapted so that each collected resource correspondence with 1 animation cycle. Exception: Collecting meat from animals, there it could be 1 animation cycle for 5 resources.

- the order that a unit should die could be queuable, for example: "build that building, then die"

- attacking fields and walls should have much lower priority in the automatical behaviour. Defending storehouses and other buildings in enemy territory as well.

[Yekaterina]

We can switch food to a flow-based economy: instead of 1 unit costing 50 food, we can change it to 1 unit costing 0.5 food per second, with an initial investment of 2 food maybe? This would be more realistic and prevents players from deleting farmers in late game. 

However, metal, stone and wood should not be flow-based because they are used to construct buildings and equipment; you do not need to repair these often so their flow consumption should be negligible. 

 

43 minutes ago, Player of 0AD said:

the order that a unit should die could be queuable, for example: "build that building, then die"

That is convenient for Macedon, but too cruel  

[Dakara]

On 13/07/2004 at 2:24 AM, phantom_rider2 said:

Diplomacy should be more then just "Ally, Neutral, or Enemy."

Maybe involve trading units as well as resources and maybe even territories, etc (like what I read about EE2, it has about everything as a possible trade).

Give unit to ally sould be good ! 

[Pumpy]

Hi, I have a suggestion for player statistics to have 2 totals, 1 for ranked games played, 1 for non ranked/multiplayer

There seems to be a phenomina where some players play multiplayer only until they get to expert level, and then go seal clubbing 1v1 on new players to raise their rank quickly without risk, if this suggestion were implimented it would give new players an indication the no rank or ~1200-1300 rank may not be accurate for the player with a low game total shown but 200+ multiplayer games under their belt, and make it easier to find a fair match for us noobs.

Thanks for all the behind the scenes work on this game everyone, it's epic!

[OmriLahav]

Hey everybody, happy to report a LOT of new 0 A.D. music coming!
I'm working on a bunch of tracks, and @Samulis contributed a lot of excellent ones as well!

I've noted the request for more battle music, will see what I can come up with!
Though to the best of my knowledge there are two combat tracks from Jeff Willet, Elusive Predator and First Sighting - is there only one on the game playlist? Might be worth checking.

Thanks,
Omri

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

1 hour ago, OmriLahav said:

Though to the best of my knowledge there are two combat tracks from Jeff Willet, Elusive Predator and First Sighting - is there only one on the game playlist? Might be worth checking.

I just think that since they are similar taiko drum tracks some people confuse the 2.

[Dizaka]

On 25/04/2021 at 1:05 PM, Pumpy said:

 seal clubbing
 

Wow, I love the way this was described.  Hereinafter I'm reserving the name "seal clubber" for some 1400-1800 players.

 

Can we have a "title" system where, with rank, come titles.  Titles could be "Seal Clubber", "Amateur", "Normal", "Above Average" based on the rank of players you've won your games against?

[Yekaterina]

55 minutes ago, Dizaka said:

 

Can we have a "title" system where, with rank, come titles.  Titles could be "Seal Clubber", "Amateur", "Normal", "Above Average" based on the rank of players you've won your games against?

We can also determine it based on number of games won, ratio of games won, etc. Winning games and high KD ratio increase the xp of a player and titles are given based on do. This separates pros from nubs so that nubs don't get abused and pros can enjoy exhilarating matches.

[Gurken Khan]

On 19/04/2021 at 11:36 PM, Radiotraining said:

spicen up the diplomatic game I think diplomacy is usually neglected

Over the last alphas, I think there was increasingly less offers by AI-enemies to become neutral or even allied; not that I'd much inclined to accept it.

Spoiler

And I just hate it when my ally accepts something like that and gives resources to someone I'm fighting...

I'd still like some ~matrix to be available in-game to see what the relations are (it gets announced anyway, but I don't necessarily remember it).

[Lion.Kanzen]

On 25/04/2021 at 5:06 AM, Dakara said:

Give unit to ally sould be good ! 

requires a bit advanced programming a couple of things.

[Ceres]

Hello!

I'm not sure if this belongs here, but would you find addition of climate catastrophes (flooding, storm, earth quake, volcanic eruption) interesting and feasible to add?

[maroder]

22 minutes ago, Ceres said:

addition of climate catastrophes (flooding

There is already a map that uses flooding. you can find it in the random map category under the filter "Trigger maps" and it is called "Extinct Volcano"

[azayrahmad]

I'm wondering if it is desirable for Siege Towers to do what they historically did: capturing walls?

I think it makes more sense than to have it as arrow-shower vehicles like they are now. Due to infantry cannot capture walls, I think it would be interesting to have gates be captured by siege towers and letting infantry to enter the gates as an alternative of ramming the gates.

Speaking of gates, I think it is weird that siege towers can pass through the gates, considering its height. Perhaps we can limit passable units based on footprint height as well?

[Player of 0AD]

26 minutes ago, azayrahmad said:

I'm wondering if it is desirable for Siege Towers to do what they historically did: capturing walls?

I think it makes more sense than to have it as arrow-shower vehicles like they are now. Due to infantry cannot capture walls, I think it would be interesting to have gates be captured by siege towers and letting infantry to enter the gates as an alternative of ramming the gates.

Speaking of gates, I think it is weird that siege towers can pass through the gates, considering its height. Perhaps we can limit passable units based on footprint height as well?

Recently I watched a historical video which says that the pop-culture siege towers (which are used to capture walls) are rather wrong. In reality, the siege towers where used to shoot at the defenders (and to destroy gates / walls / buildings)

So they should be fine.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

2 minutes ago, Player of 0AD said:

So they should be fine.

DON'T CHANGE ANYTHING 

[Stan`]

I'm not sure we can restrict the Z axis. I think we use A 2D pathfinder

[azayrahmad]

12 minutes ago, Player of 0AD said:

Recently I watched a historical video which says that the pop-culture siege towers (which are used to capture walls) are rather wrong. In reality, the siege towers where used to shoot at the defenders (and to destroy gates / walls / buildings)

So they should be fine.

Wait really? So they are not used to pour soldiers into the walls? I was about to think of a way to unload garrisoned soldiers into wall turrets.

I wonder what the top part of the tower is intended for. I imagined that it is supposed to unfold a plank in front of the wall, letting soldiers to run onto the wall. Probably it is actually just to let archers shoot over the wall easily?

[Player of 0AD]

I just read on Wikipedia: The unfolded planks were a novelty in the middle ages

 

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

Siege Towers combatted units on walls so that ladders could be brought up. We need ladder teams. 

[PyrrhicVictoryGuy]

but nobody uses stone walls