Suggestions for 0 A.D.

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

It would be interesting to show cumulative idle time of barracks, stables, and maybe civic centers in the structures tab of the results statistics. It would help inform players on how they can improve in some areas, especially when deciding between 1 by 1 autoqueue or manual batch training. What do you think?

Edited June 23 by BreakfastBurrito_007

[Stan`]

It's not that hard to add but that means it will steal some of the simulation time measuring stuff that's probably not that important for most people.

[LienRag]

On 15/05/2024 at 5:52 AM, Outis said:

What i meant to say was: if we think the fortress fails at defending an area, we should make changes to ensure it excels at it, rather than make changes to add other functions to it. It should excel at its main job first before exceling at other things.

Historically a fortress was a way to interdict the area around it.

And gameplay-wise, that's what it should do.

A raid could go around it, a strong enemy force could capture it, but it should also be a deadly trap if you can block an enemy in its killzone by any other mean.

 

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

On 14/05/2024 at 4:07 PM, Genava55 said:

 

The game is currently divided into three phases:
- Village phase.
- Town phase.
- City phase.

The problem with this system is that it focuses on the concept of urban development and the development of the great Mediterranean civilizations. It wasn't relevant enough for civilizations such as the Gauls and Britons, but it's going to become even less so if we add nomadic peoples like the Scythians.

I propose a more neutral system:
Ascent / Expansion / Zenith

1. Ascent (or ascension): This initial phase evokes the beginning of the development of civilisation, where it rises from its modest beginnings to broader horizons. It can symbolise the period when the foundations are laid and the first advances are made.
2. Expansion: This phase represents the period when civilisation expands and prospers, colonising new territories and extending its influence and power. This is a stage of growth and exploration.
3. Zenith: The final phase, the apogee, suggests the pinnacle of civilisation, where it reaches its full potential in terms of culture, technology and power. This is the moment when civilisation radiates its greatest splendour.

Sure, but this is essentially the same system, right? Just different naming.

2 hours ago, LienRag said:

Historically a fortress was a way to interdict the area around it.

And gameplay-wise, that's what it should do.

A raid could go around it, a strong enemy force could capture it, but it should also be a deadly trap if you can block an enemy in its killzone by any other mean.

 

What if we made Fortresses have 8000 health, have more arrows, but shorter attack range.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

Walls are pretty underused. Maybe some tweaks to cost/buildtime could be done, but avoiding wall spam is an absolute must. I think instead, some improvements could be made to wall placing. Is there any way to let walls not be obstructed by trees and destroy trees upon construction? Essentially the behavior of shrubs in the eurasian steppe biome, but for stone walls (maybe palisades too).

The existing mechanic is very centered around the resource rather than the building being built on the resource, so it might be quite an undertaking.

Edited July 28 by real_tabasco_sauce

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

21 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Walls are pretty underused. Maybe some tweaks to cost/buildtime could be done, but avoiding wall spam is an absolute must. I think instead, some improvements could be made to wall placing. Is there any way to let walls not be obstructed by trees and destroy trees upon construction? Essentially the behavior of shrubs in the eurasian steppe biome, but for stone walls (maybe palisades too).

The existing mechanic is very centered around the resource rather than the building being built on the resource, so it might be quite an undertaking.

I don't think it would be that hard to do for one who has the code knowledge.

[Grapjas]

1 hour ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

s there any way to let walls not be obstructed by trees and destroy trees upon construction?

Could try to add these to the tree template

<BlockConstruction>false</BlockConstruction> <BlockFoundation>false</BlockFoundation> But it would work for all structures though. If you need, I can share a snippet on how you can probably do this in components tomorrow.

Edited July 29 by Grapjas

[real_tabasco_sauce]

2 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

I don't think it would be that hard to do for one who has the code knowledge.

2 hours ago, Grapjas said:

Could try to add these to the tree template

<BlockConstruction>false</BlockConstruction> <BlockFoundation>false</BlockFoundation> But it would work for all structures though. If you need, I can share a snippet on how you can probably do this in components tomorrow.

Ok great, i'd like to hear suggestions. I haven't done anything in the components related to resources and foundations.

[Grapjas]

7 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Ok great, i'd like to hear suggestions. I haven't done anything in the components related to resources and foundations.

You could probably do something like replacing this line with

let collisions = cmpObstruction.GetEntitiesBlockingConstruction();

then check if those entities are a tree class (or whatever class it is) and pass ret as "success".

Not sure if that would delete the trees but if not then you probably need to tweak the commit function in foundation or the IsFinished() function if you only wanted them deleted when the building is done.

[Grapjas]

Was a bit bored so i made it anyway, lol. Do with it as you (anyone) please. Delete the Foundation file if you want the trees to disappear the moment they start building, otherwise they will only be deleted until the wall is done (to prevent exploits?).

walls_destroy_trees.pyromod

Btw, the tooltips like "cannot be built on another building or resource" for walls aren't working in vanilla. A project for someone else

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

If walls were more effective in slowing/stopping melee cav and more easily sealed, then it would justify an increase in the per wall cost (especially for palisades). This way you could have less wall spam in favor of careful base design and cost effective partial walling. At the same time I think having reduced build time for palisades and/or walls is a good option.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

2 hours ago, Grapjas said:

Was a bit bored so i made it anyway, lol. Do with it as you (anyone) please. Delete the Foundation file if you want the trees to disappear the moment they start building, otherwise they will only be deleted until the wall is done (to prevent exploits?).

walls_destroy_trees.pyromod 4.84 kB · 1 download

Btw, the tooltips like "cannot be built on another building or resource" for walls aren't working in vanilla. A project for someone else

Okay, tried it. I'm wondering why we just don't do it for all buildings (delete straggler trees) and add DE's Groves (which aren't deletable).

[real_tabasco_sauce]

Honestly why not do it for all buildings?

I can’t come up with solid reasons not to.

EDIT: i came up with one: fort in forest vs civ without catapults XD.

Edited July 30 by real_tabasco_sauce

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

36 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Honestly why not do it for all buildings?

I can’t come up with solid reasons not to.

EDIT: i came up with one: fort in forest vs civ without catapults XD.

I'd suggest really looking into DE's groves. They'd solve this, as most forests would be made of undeletable Groves.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

how about a 24 hour timer after a new account is created before a player can make a new one. I suppose it would be pretty easy to go around with a reinstall for example, but at least it would make spamming new accounts more difficult.

just a thought.

[Stan`]

10 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

how about a 24 hour timer after a new account is created before a player can make a new one. I suppose it would be pretty easy to go around with a reinstall for example, but at least it would make spamming new accounts more difficult.

just a thought.

I'm not sure it's as much, but IIRC there is an IP registration limit. E.g. if you wanna play with a family member there is a chance they will not be able to register a new accound if you just did.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

hm maybe some time players could attach an email to their lobby account (maybe then opt into/out of notifications like release trailers, etc), and use a email confirmation to prove the account is real.

[Stan`]

4 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

hm maybe some time players could attach an email to their lobby account (maybe then opt into/out of notifications like release trailers, etc), and use a email confirmation to prove the account is real.

I don't think @Dunedan wants to add email to the list of personal data, but maybe I'm wrong.

Sending e-mails will be a bit tricky for some people

[guerringuerrin]

What about adding account lifetime or creation date to the account details at lobby? People can still create accounts and leave them for a while before use it, but it seems like a simple way to detect the most of the smurf accounts

[Stan`]

1 hour ago, guerringuerrin said:

What about adding account lifetime or creation date to the account details at lobby? People can still create accounts and leave them for a while before use it, but it seems like a simple way to detect the most of the smurf accounts

Well what we need is a reputation system accessible from the game. But I suppose a new tag could help. Might also isolate new players for no valid reason. 50 reports for profanity on your account seems more legit than new.