Suggestions for 0 A.D.

[Lion.Kanzen]

4 hours ago, ShadowOfHassen said:

So I'm doing research for the encyclopedia, and the Greeks farmed grapes and olives almost just as much as wheat. Should there be some sort of orchard that is a unique field for the Greek?

Not for now.

[b4thman]

Hello. I know this may sound weird, but playing a game in 3D (Nvidia 3D Vision, or any other similar method) is absolutely awesome, and any game changes A LOT, for the better.

Games using directx 11 can be reproduced in 3D a lot of times with small tweaks, and some engines just work very well out of the box without fixing any shader (Unreal Engine 4 is one of them, applying an universal UE4 fix). There are solutions also for Vulkan games.

I don't enjoy 2D games anymore, so I hope this game support real 3D in the future (directly or using a engine that allow to fix the shaders).

https://helixmod.blogspot.com/

https://www.mtbs3d.com/phpbb/viewforum.php?f=181

 

 

Edited June 18, 2023 by b4thman

[Barbaduque]

Bom dia, sou Brasileiro então escreverei em português os meus achados sobre o jogo, espero que vocês levem em consideração.

Jogo age of mythology a bastante tempo, temos grupo que costuma se reunir para jogar junto.

Acredito que a mecânica do 0 a.d é muito interessante par aum jogo em desenvolvimento, é um jogo que possui uma jogabilidade incrível, acredito que vocês não deveriam permitir que qualquer cidadão ou soldado fizessem construções, afinal na vida real não são todos que possuem essa aptidão, poderiam incluir em algumas civilizações apenas, como por exemplo a romana que é ótima em construí pontes, poderiam incluir isso no jogo. Outra coisa que acho interessante vocês se atentarem é quanto a questão de zonas que você pode construir, essa mecânica do age of empires é bem ultrapassada e evita a malícia de algumas estratégias para dominação de território acaba travando a jogabilidade, se vocês deixarem as construções mais soltas, podendo construir fora da zona principal da base o jogo fica muito mais dinâmico e traiçoeiro, algo que o age of mythology faz muito bem. Recomendo que adicionem também atalhos de teclas para construções, por exemplo no age of mythology apertando a tecla "E" com um construtor selecionado, você aparece a construção casa. Isso torna o jogo mais rápido e menos dependente do mouse, achei incrível o jogo, gráfico e animações de vocês, espero que continuem o desenvolvimento. Parabéns, é um jogo muito bonito.

[Barbaduque]

Oi sou eu novamente, esqueci de falar também que seria interessante diferenciar soldados de construtores ociosos em botões diferentes, outra questão é incluir um atalho de tecla que amplie o mapa semelhante a age of mythology 

[seeh]

On 21/05/2023 at 7:36 AM, seeh said:

configurable which should remain the default/standard Map, even if the mod settings have changed.
At the moment its: Greek Acropolis (2)

works with this workaround:

 

[vajei]

I am translating through Google Translate, I hope the sentences are understandable.
In the game as it is today, the main disadvantage, in my opinion, is that it lacks dynamics.
The game more or less goes like this: each side develops as fast as it can, then when it has a siege weapon it simply makes a general attack of the whole army, whoever developed faster wins.
It takes all the strategy and thinking out of the game, you just have to learn how to develop quickly and not waste people and time, and that's almost the whole game.
For example, if one decides to send 20% of the force to make a surprise raid, and they succeed, and destroy the opponent's economy, it does not help because his 100% will crush your 80%, you will be left with 0% and he will be left with about 50%. He will conquer all of your part, and you at best will conquer his part only to lose later to the large army he still has left.

My suggestions on the matter: 1. Fortresses and watchtowers are stronger 2. The control power of the soldiers will be smaller as they move away from their area, so that it will be necessary to conquer step by step, and not simply go straight to the opponent's base and finish the game.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

What do ppl think about mercenary champions? Should they be a thing, or should all champions stick to the food/wood/metal cost profile?

Edited July 12, 2023 by real_tabasco_sauce

[ShadowOfHassen]

1 minute ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

What do ppl think about mercenary champions? Should they be a thing, or should all champions stick to the food/wood/metal cost profile?

It's a good idea, it'd be a lot of metal but If there's a cool historical mercenary,

[Vantha]

I think mercenary champions are a great idea. In my opinion, it's a bit boring that all champions have the exact same damage, resistance, and price. I think it would add variety to, for example, increase one champion unit's damage and decrease its resistance. Maybe decrease another unit's price at the cost of making it less powerful. Or (like with mercenary champions) just change the price to make one unit cost only metal, or no metal and more food and wood. This would allow for more strategies and build orders. But that's just my opinion. What do you think?

[real_tabasco_sauce]

3 hours ago, Vantha said:

I think it would add variety to, for example, increase one champion unit's damage and decrease its resistance. Maybe decrease another unit's price at the cost of making it less powerful. Or (like with mercenary champions) just change the price to make one unit cost only metal, or no metal and more food and wood. This would allow for more strategies and build orders. But that's just my opinion. What do you think?

Yes, there are already some units like this.

An example is the gaul fanatic unit. It only costs food and wood and is very fast, but they are weak and train from temples. I think it would be nice to start introducing some 'unique' champions.

[chrstgtr]

8 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Yes, there are already some units like this.

An example is the gaul fanatic unit. It only costs food and wood and is very fast, but they are weak and train from temples. I think it would be nice to start introducing some 'unique' champions.

Agree. There are already units like this. But I'd really like to get away from the "introduce a new unique unit" for each civ as a means of differentiating. Playing the same with every civ until you spam one, unique unit for that civ at min 15 is a pretty boring meta.

Now, if the unique unit creates a unique build order, like free champs, siege, or something then that's a different story. 

I would just like to see civs play more differently than each other. 

Edited July 14, 2023 by chrstgtr

[real_tabasco_sauce]

yeah, I think they should be unique in various ways. Ive just put together some cool ideas for the nomads civs in terra magna but there is still plenty of missing art for those civs.

[chrstgtr]

1 hour ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

yeah, I think they should be unique in various ways. Ive just put together some cool ideas for the nomads civs in terra magna but there is still plenty of missing art for those civs.

yeah, i'm not worried about nomads--those should be pretty unique by virtue of being nomadic. 

[Ferib]

Hello, I am fan of RTS - especially historical ones, so I thought that it would be good to remake the whole thing and make it like Age of Empires - mainly a gradual development tree, while it is a certain possibility of choosing factions based on historical development (e.g. ancient Egypt to the Ptolemies).
and I can imagine like this, or at least in my mind I have concepts for creating games, or 1 completely game through all periods of the so-called of human history, or history of civilization ;)

[Barcodes]

This thread is as old as me wtf

[Joe-Lay]

On 12/07/2023 at 3:47 PM, real_tabasco_sauce said:

What do ppl think about mercenary champions?

I think it might be neat if you could upgrade the standard mercernary citizen-soldiers into full-blown champions. A special building or an additional barracks functionality could be a technology that upgrades all the garrisonned mercenaries into champions. The only downside I can think of is that it might be overpowered and it wouldn't make sense to upgrade mercenaries but not native citizen soldiers up to champions.

[Emacz]

It really bothers me that if someone attacks a single unit on the woodline (or anywhere) the remaining units continue working as if nothing happend.  One suggestion i heard was control groups, which i use!  So a more specific example would be if Im attacking the opponent and they send a counter attack to my woodline, they can pick the women off 1 by one and the men continue to chop.  I dont know im being attacked, because Im attacking/being attacked at their base.  So the idea would be that when set in agressive stance they will stop what they are doing and fight within X distance of each other.  So if one unit gets attacked woodline other units within X would fight alongside.  Does that make sense? is it possible?

[krt0143]

On 19/08/2023 at 12:45 AM, Emacz said:

It really bothers me that if someone attacks a single unit on the woodline (or anywhere) the remaining units continue working as if nothing happend.  One suggestion i heard was control groups, which i use!  So a more specific example would be if Im attacking the opponent and they send a counter attack to my woodline, they can pick the women off 1 by one and the men continue to chop.  I dont know im being attacked, because Im attacking/being attacked at their base.  So the idea would be that when set in agressive stance they will stop what they are doing and fight within X distance of each other.  So if one unit gets attacked woodline other units within X would fight alongside.  Does that make sense? is it possible?

Definitely, and that's a pet peeve of mine too. When working, you can hack them to pieces, they won't react, so you need to constantly babysit them and tell them there is somebody killing them, do something already!

Given in 0 A.D. workers are soldiers, they should react if somebody gets attacked in they immediate vicinity, fight, and then only go back to whatever they were doing.

[alre]

2 hours ago, krt0143 said:

Definitely, and that's a pet peeve of mine too. When working, you can hack them to pieces, they won't react, so you need to constantly babysit them and tell them there is somebody killing them, do something already!

Given in 0 A.D. workers are soldiers, they should react if somebody gets attacked in they immediate vicinity, fight, and then only go back to whatever they were doing.

that isn't necessarily better than doing nothing. It could lead to mass suicide. Fleeing looks like a much better default to me. In the end the player needs to handle it anyway.

[Gurken Khan]

7 minutes ago, alre said:

Fleeing looks like a much better default to me.

Mmm. That can lead to a unit slowly being killed without dishing out retribution; it's not like they're fleeing into a secure building. I usually have my CS on aggressive, but that also depends on what work they're doing and at what point of the map they are.

But I agree that the player should handle it. Besides the text warning there's also the flashing on the minimap, one should look at that frequently imho.

[alre]

47 minutes ago, Gurken Khan said:

Mmm. That can lead to a unit slowly being killed without dishing out retribution; it's not like they're fleeing into a secure building. I usually have my CS on aggressive, but that also depends on what work they're doing and at what point of the map they are.

But I agree that the player should handle it. Besides the text warning there's also the flashing on the minimap, one should look at that frequently imho.

fleeing to a safe building would be even better, yes. I have suggested creating a command maybe called "find shelter" that makes the selection run to the nearest building that can host them, I hadn't thought about making it automatic with a stance though.

Excluding this option (I'm not creating it) I'd be happy if units were passive by default, and switched automatically to aggressive when first given a command for attacking. Maybe this mod I can create.

[krt0143]

1 hour ago, alre said:

that isn't necessarily better than doing nothing. It could lead to mass suicide. Fleeing looks like a much better default to me.

It depends: If your working units are fighting units, it's just another fight, much like if they were standing around.

If they are not fighting units, they should take shelter, running away is pointless.

[krt0143]

7 minutes ago, alre said:

 if units were passive by default, and switched automatically to aggressive when first given a command for attacking.

What for? When given a command to attack they always attack, no matter what stance they're in. I don't understand.

The point here was more about being able to quit an assigned job automatically when/if a friend nearby starts taking damage.

[alre]

41 minutes ago, krt0143 said:

It depends: If your working units are fighting units, it's just another fight, much like if they were standing around.

I'm not considering units standing around simply because units shouldn't generally stand around, but in fact, whenever I've left some unit standing as a sentinel, I put him on passive.

[alre]

38 minutes ago, krt0143 said:

What for? When given a command to attack they always attack, no matter what stance they're in. I don't understand.

they don't if they are on passive stance.

38 minutes ago, krt0143 said:

The point here was more about being able to quit an assigned job automatically when/if a friend nearby starts taking damage.

I think that would be bad and potentially exploitable by your enemy, think about how archer cav would be a lot more effective at disrupting eco. It's almost always better to delay the fight as much as possible.