why alpha 24 is not nice ?

[andy5995]

On 06/03/2021 at 2:54 PM, wraitii said:

I've sen that one before. I think the problem is rams target the tower. Then they fail to reach it. So they look for a new target... Which happens to be the same tower. Endless loop  I'm not entirely sure if the loop is in UnitAI or the real AI or both though.

@wraitiiticket 6096 created

[Sequani]

Hi, 

I have not read everything... Just one thing is not good for me, before I can make myself an opinion. The sound. I don't feel myself in the game. When fighting, its like nothing happens. I played with the volumes, did not change anything. A mod with sounds of A23 would be great  

Else, I'm just playing terribly bad, have to learn. 

Edited March 9, 2021 by Sequani

[BoredRusher]

I totally agree with Reza and Chrsgtr on all the way !

[BoredRusher]

22 hours ago, captBluesky said:

OMG, what have they done to my Romans?!!

 

Cat's don't seem to target soldiers anymore.

Ships are now laughably impotent and can easily be dispatched by archers (really?), while ships garrisoned with cats do nothing against their attackers in return.

Roman champ cav seems to have lost all its tech upgrades, and now are easily dispatched. **about the only defense Rome had against ramSpam was fast, tough champ cav. That's gone now.

Rome still has no defense against long range ground units (archers, slingers) save for seige, which now is so fragile as to be nearly useless. **Romans need mercenary archers/slingers option (like other factions do).

Rome had strong walls, and strong buildings ("had" being the operative word), which helped offset horde attacks.

It only took a few games against the ai horde attacks to realize just how badly nerfed Rome had become in 24b.

 

24b seems to cater to the spam-fast-and-hard crowd (the celtic-only wonder boyz). Romans had been very strong, but range disadvantaged, slow (to build), and structurally expensive. But with engineering techniques, they could hold, and gain territory. No longer. With their camps they could project power that offset other limitations. Now even that capability has been emasculated.

 

Non-spamming type thinking seems to have displeased the prior celtic-horde old-boy network. In 24b that sort of inappropriate thinking appears to have been corrected, preserving the status quo.

I'm sure we'll read and hear how all this was *necessary* and clearly a *fair* change, if we  would only be reasonable and accept the mandates imposed on us by our black hooded masters. And that any descent is indicative of some kind of character flaw of anyone who would dare criticize these changes.

 

For those who might rebel against what is clearly tyrannical conspiracy, I suggest the following..

We, the oppressed, should mandate that everyone involved  in pushing our beloved developer team to implement this ludicrous perversion of Rome (and other factions I fear) be made to play only the Roman faction (and no other) for the duration of 24b, until version 25 arrives. I  mean, since all these changes are fair, balanced and just, they should have no objection and gladly accept this edict as a token of good will and to promote 0ad social cohesion.

 

Note:

My comments are in no way intended to disparage the development team. Those folks work very hard for low pay ($0.00), and are about the kindest, most agreeable folks (except for wraitii, but he's still ok) I've ever encountered.

Please drop some kind words on the wildfire team!

Agreed !

[Dunedan]

Just to chime in with my opinion: I barely play anymore, because a24 just feels dull and boring, as civs are now all (more or less) the same. I really liked the kind of differences between the civs before.

Aside from that the most annoying changes for me are the sounds as well and the reduced movement speed of units.

[Dakara]

On 24/02/2021 at 1:46 PM, king reza the great said:

hi guys.

i wanna say some reason that why alpha 24 is not good.

1- sound is not good. when u fight u even cant feel it because action sound is hard to hear even if u put it to max from settings. a23 had very nice sounds i have no idea why devs changed it.

Yes...

2- there r low differences between civs now and its not interesting. in fact if civs r almost same the game will be boring. in a23 there r enough differences between civs.

Yes and not, more civ are played now. Somes units have new units and orther loose units. it same. But civ have to give possibilty to do strategy different. 

3- economy of a24 is terrible. a23 had much better economy. why devs changed it ? in a24 its hard to reach 200 pop and u r always run out of wood.

Same for me, just eco tech are more expansive in phase 3, but when i rush 200 pop i have less tech military than A23.

4- a24 is less realistic. for example how possible catas and rams cant atatck soldiors ? its really boring.
and how possible bowmen r able to destroy catas and bolts ?

Good for me! ram is normal and catas was too op in A23 and no brain. But atm they need cost only 2 pop and maybe less wood.But can powerbuff civ archers + cata.

5- the game is still laggy. i even think lag in a24 is more than lag in a23. its why many players prefer to host 3v3 games and avoid 4v4 games.

Yes and i think it the priority... order, shift, moves lag

6- in a24 u r less able to rush. no rush no fun. rushing makes games more realistic and thriller.

Yes but u can still rush sometimes (depends of ennemy civ), tower need nerf ! 

i think a23 is much better than a24. in fact a24 is like a different game. when i play it i dont feel im playing 0ad !

im looking for new game ! any suggestion ?

 

 

 

Edited March 11, 2021 by Dakara

[Lion.Kanzen]

Before it was very easy to rush that makes the game extremely boring a single strategy, they got used to just playing the same thing for three long years, it was a mistake not to have launched in Alpha before so that they get used to all the disasters.

The Archers are pretty badly balanced but the elephants I think are a nightmare.

 

 

[nani]

18 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

Before it was very easy to rush that makes the game extremely boring a single strategy, they got used to just playing the same thing for three long years, it was a mistake not to have launched in Alpha before so that they get used to all the disasters.

The Archers are pretty badly balanced but the elephants I think are a nightmare.

 

 

????¿??

[Lion.Kanzen]

1 minute ago, nani said:

????¿??

that rush strategy in my opinion was historically unrealistic.

They looked like Mongol hordes. With an exaggerated but disproportionate amount of cavalry.

[Karl]

OMG, what have they done to my Ptolemäer?!!

The Civilisation is completly mixed up.

New Pictures for Units and Buildings.

All Civilisations are nearly the same.

New Bugs, Bowman now dont work.

I will not play Alpha 24.

 

 

 

 

[mimesot]

I really don't appreciate the tone of some community members. This makes me sad. Giving critical reviews is essential for the developement of the game, but not a wildfire of anger. Thats detrimental to the morale of a dev team. A critical statement should always include a very specific description of an issue, a reasining wha it is a problem and a qualifier on how much it actually reduces the fun in the game as well as a suggestion on how to resolve it. I would like to ask people to use this forum to support de devs and not just rant.

And yes, I agree that the un-diversifivation of the factions is reducing the excitement in picking a faction and yes, the romans took a steep, painful dive to bottom tier. But overall the improvements in A24 are significant and I wanna se us stay in an appeciating mood.

Is there any chance that we might have a balancing patch a24.1 in the forseeable future?

[thankforpieOfficial]

1 hour ago, mimesot said:

I really don't appreciate the tone of some community members. This makes me sad. Giving critical reviews is essential for the developement of the game, but not a wildfire of anger. Thats detrimental to the morale of a dev team. A critical statement should always include a very specific description of an issue, a reasining wha it is a problem and a qualifier on how much it actually reduces the fun in the game as well as a suggestion on how to resolve it. I would like to ask people to use this forum to support de devs and not just rant.

And yes, I agree that the un-diversifivation of the factions is reducing the excitement in picking a faction and yes, the romans took a steep, painful dive to bottom tier. But overall the improvements in A24 are significant and I wanna se us stay in an appeciating mood.

Is there any chance that we might have a balancing patch a24.1 in the forseeable future?

tbh i wonder how they will differentiate the civs

[borg-]

48 minutes ago, thankforpieOfficial said:

tbh i wonder how they will differentiate the civs

The project belongs to everyone. We opened discussion in the forum to differentiate civilizations, so you can help with your opinion and ideas.

Edited March 24, 2021 by borg-

[Lion.Kanzen]

all factions must have a 2-3 unit combo.

 

Skirmishers and Slingers are weaker than Archers.

 

Slingers still good.

 

Skirmishers (infantry) must be counter some units. Light cav for example. And Elephants.

Romans  they should have better access to mercenaries or auxiliaries. But limited.

Spartan must have better Slingers.They should have reforms.

Slingers They should be different from each other, some with more armor, others with more life, others with more range and others with more damage.

Maurya should be weaker in armor. Most of your spearmen, their light cav should be medium. Their chariot should have some disadvantage.

There should be a swordman tradition.

 

The rest is good  But you should watch to see how the changes would affect them.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

4 hours ago, thankforpieOfficial said:

tbh i wonder how they will differentiate the civs

There are numerous threads on this forum discussing each individual civ.