I quite like 0AD - heres few of my thoughts

[thankforpie]

 

 

I played a bit, here are my thoughts:

 

- rating system is way too easy to cheat, all u need to do is launch second instance of AD or use your friend to resign on purpose.

     - apart from that ranking system is not developed at all. something like in league of legends would be great fit to this game

- This is quite good RTS game but lobbys are empty. Bad marketing i guess?

- about 40% of people joining your game are lagging so much that they make game impossible for you. next 30% are leavers. so you are left with 30% of small playerbase if you want to play.

 

 

gameplay:

- everyone plays the same. they rush machines, 200 slingers with 48 ranked attack range, and some pikes for first line (to stop u from reaching slingers), basically SPAM. its annoying honestly. this game is battle of slingers and eventually archers, but usually just slingers.

 

theres no single player that won against me that didnt spam slingers.

 

 

 

apart from that its good addicting game

Edited September 14, 2018 by thankforpie

[Stan`]

28 minutes ago, thankforpie said:

- rating system is way too easy to cheat, all u need to do is launch second instance of AD or use your friend to resign on purpose.

Yeah we are working on it. What you are doing though is a reach of the terms of use and you can be banned for it.

29 minutes ago, thankforpie said:

apart from that ranking system is not developed at all. something like in league of legends would be great fit to this game

Well it uses the same underlying ELO system. You can guess the leagues that way.

30 minutes ago, thankforpie said:

This

 

30 minutes ago, thankforpie said:

This is quite good RTS game but lobbys are empty. Bad marketing i guess?

Yeah. There is no money here so we don't do advertisement. Make sure you are using the latest versions though.

 

 

[thankforpie]

3 minutes ago, stanislas69 said:

Yeah we are working on it. What you are doing though is a reach of the terms of use and you can be banned for it.

Well it uses the same underlying ELO system. You can guess the leagues that way.

 

Yeah. There is no money here so we don't do advertisement. Make sure you are using the latest versions though.

 

 

i didnt say im cheating rating. but it made rating seem less important so i stopped playing 1v1 for rating. i play them for fun eventually. 

[Stan`]

Yeah I understand your point. We are a bit shorthanded in that area so if you know potential contributors that could be good. In the meantime there are a few turnaments that started blooming on the forums so it might be an interesting challenge.

[Jofursloft]

3 hours ago, thankforpie said:

 gameplay:

- everyone plays the same. they rush machines, 200 slingers with 48 ranked attack range, and some pikes for first line (to stop u from reaching slingers), basically SPAM. its annoying honestly. this game is battle of slingers and eventually archers, but usually just slingers.

theres no single player that wont against me that didnt spam slingers.

I'm sorry but I don't completely agree with this: as you say, it's true that slingers are a very good unit to use (maybe the best), but it doesn't mean that all players are used to spam slingers + pikes. In truth I personally think that every type of ranged unit in this game is well balanced: for a frontal attack for example skirmishers + heavy pikes or slingers + pikes (it happened me many times to beat a slinger  and pikes spammer with ptolemies skirmishers and heavy pikes). Archers, also, in reverse of what many people think, in my opinion are a very good type of unit, perfect for a defensive game, not surely for a frontal attack. Archers are good because of they very long range, and their real problem is not their strenght, but the faction which they are associated to, that usually has a "weak" type of siege defense machine, like catapults or elephants (except in case of persia), that are not effective like rams (you can garrison/ungrarrison fast from the fort to destroy nearby enemy rams). 

Edited September 13, 2018 by Jofursloft

[Guest]

(One can also try a fancy cavalry manuever and make the pikes/spears useless. Atleast, thats how it should be.)

[thankforpie]

On 9/13/2018 at 8:58 PM, Jofursloft said:

In truth I personally think that every type of ranged unit in this game is well balanced: for a frontal attack for example skirmishers + heavy pikes or slingers + pikes (it happened me many times to beat a slinger  and pikes spammer with ptolemies skirmishers and heavy pikes)

2

 

but isnt it exactly the same thing just with other naming? you both used pikes frontally to take dmg while spammed enemy to death with ranged units at the back?

[Jofursloft]

In a certain sense yes, that is the most effective strategy usually, but there are some ways to counter it: 1) do the same with your army, 2) make sword cavarly to attack frontally the pikes with your army and kill the ranged unit at the back with the horses, 3) make siege towers (if the enemy has not swordmen or slingers), 4) make 4-5 catapults to kill fast the ranged units, 5) attack the enemy from multiple side (one part of your army coming from left the other from right to make his pikes unuseful in one side)

[Guest]

Nobody is going to mention bolt shooters or catapults?

Either will absolutely shred an army of tightly packed units. And someone spamming ranged units can do absolitely nothing to stop it.

[Jofursloft]

20 minutes ago, (-_-) said:

Nobody is going to mention bolt shooters or catapults?

 Either will absolutely shred an army of tightly packed units. And someone spamming ranged units can do absolitely nothing to stop it.

make 4-5 catapults to kill fast the ranged units

[Dade]

I've been playing this days after a long break and I think I understand what OP is talking about.

Basically, there's a dominant choice with civs as far I have played this week: civs with slingers. After that, there's no real strategy other than spam the most slingers you can, put something in front of them (will depend on the selected civ) and smash at least the first line of defense of your opponent.

Ever heard on history class about a slinger only army ripping apart soldiers, civilians, siege engines and structures themselves? Well, that's the trend actually of almost every single multiplayer game.

I've watched some of the 0 A.D. Champions Cup games (sorry but I could not find the original videos in english) and you can see it on your own. The other variant is skirmisher cav (yes, more ranged xD) to harass/rush the enemy. Anything else is residual. Don't get me wrong, A23 is great and I really enjoyed coming back to play, but saying ranged is balanced at least optimistic.

On the other hand, while it's true that ranked system can be a bit "primitive", a ranking system like LoL isn't the point actually (tiny playerbase). Also consider @thankforpie there are usually changes every release that modify the gameplay.

[Dakara]

I don't like system of LOL, elo or new system is better

bronze gold silver and diamond it for kidddds

[Jofursloft]

13 hours ago, Dade said:

Basically, there's a dominant choice with civs as far I have played this week: civs with slingers. After that, there's no real strategy other than spam the most slingers you can, put something in front of them (will depend on the selected civ) and smash at least the first line of defense of your opponent.

A mass of slingers is not what makes you win a 1v1 game or a team game. There are too many variables to explain in a comment, but I don't personally think that the best civilizations are op only because they have slingers.

[Imarok]

31 minutes ago, Jofursloft said:

There are too many variables to explain in a comment, 

You can write quite long comments in this forum. (Ask @Sundiata ;))

[Dade]

6 hours ago, Jofursloft said:

A mass of slingers is not what makes you win a 1v1 game or a team game. There are too many variables to explain in a comment, but I don't personally think that the best civilizations are op only because they have slingers.

Sorry if I explained myself wrong, but I didn't say slingers wins games alone. Whenever I loose, it's either my fault or the opponent is better than me, period.

I am just saying there's a dominant choice: civs with slingers. Either to thrive stronger economies or directly smash the opponent. How many non-casual players have you ever seen in lobby playing Spartans, Macedonians or Persians? Hell, Kushites looks awesome  and on paper they should be THE counter to slingers/rams civs (swordsmans and sword cav), but I hardly see someone playing them.

My point is pretty simple, Rome conquered almost the entire known world with gladius, not throwing rocks to their opponents. Same probably applies to any other civilization. I never heard of an ancient castle siege with only ranged units (you can include bolts shooters here too) supporting their siege engines and I doubt I will ever will. Actually on 0 A.D., that's the current meta of 95% of the games also because its much easier and safer - most of the time - to destroy structures than conquer them, which is completely illogical from my point of view.

If we consider this is an issue, there are many but I am trying to update myself on 0 A.D. development before saying something which is already planned.

Edited November 16, 2018 by Dade
forgot mace :)

[Guest]

10 hours ago, Dade said:

How many non-casual players have you ever seen in lobby playing Spartans

Quite a few actually. In fact, it’s the favourite of @JC (naval supremacist). Pretty sure he plays competitively.

[Dade]

6 hours ago, (-_-) said:

Quite a few actually. In fact, it’s the favourite of @JC (naval supremacist). Pretty sure he plays competitively.

I remember seeing a player called JC, but I never see him again on my gaming sessions. That's still 1 player playing one "off-the-meta" civs, and I doubt he use them on 1v1.

[JC (naval supremacist)]

On 11/17/2018 at 12:33 PM, Dade said:

I remember seeing a player called JC, but I never see him again on my gaming sessions. That's still 1 player playing one "off-the-meta" civs, and I doubt he use them on 1v1.

.  Yes, i play Sparta just because they look cool. But if i want to increase my probability of winning in a 1v1 , i play Celts. Why ? Because with Sparta, unless i success basic rush (which is counter by some slingers) i barely reach P3 while the brits/gauls/ptols have already Castle + Hero and some siege (-10% pop)  Against Ptol, its possible to resist the very hard 1 wave attack and wait enemy to have no more metal ..  but with gauls/brits .. their eco are just too good for sparta to resist endless spam of hyper-mobile slingers + stronger celts eco (farm bonus, cheap barracks) over sparta eco (-10% eco and extra building to get hero).  Sparta has to rely on late P3 to push back with all upgrades .. but often its already too late ; slingers are walking all around, retreating at will with no casualties  (while spartan units are stucked by obstacles) ,  destroying towers .. and Sparta rams are counter by fast sword cavs ..  slingers are massively used coz they are just too easy to use ... and often reach <<< veteran grade  and finally are even able to destroy CC alone. 

Also, when you see stats of units, the slinger is just situated midway between archers and skirmishers .. but seriously .. how can a little stone can make more damage than an arrow or a javelin ?    I would suggest the devs to make slingers the fastest infantery (more than skirmishers) but also, the less shielded and less harmful.

 

n.b :  i just discover recently that SParta has  +10% building time and Celts -20%  ..  thats huge gap

 

Edited November 27, 2018 by JC (naval supremacist)

[Dade]

Thanks for sharing your pov on this topic @JC (naval supremacist)

 

I've created a separate thread sharing my ideas.