Jump to content

Suggestions for 0 A.D.


Wijitmaker
 Share

Recommended Posts

- 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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 :( 

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 ! 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
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?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

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?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

gambar.png.10e8670954d895713118f1691467155c.png

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?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...