Jump to content

Thread for posting suggestions for Alpha 26


m7600
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just a thread for posting suggestions for the next Alpha.

I highly recommend taking into account (not necessarily implement, but at least acknowledge) everything that this guy says in the video I'm posting here. He's a professional historian who specializes in ancient warfare, and many of the things he says are relevant to 0 A.D.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

He lost me in the first minute of the video when he said the Spartan formation fighting and othismos in 300 was a myth, while praising the scenes of Leonidas breaking ranks and berserking across the battlefield. I mean u wot m8?

come on it was not like that! he makes the interesting point that people would run towards the enemy, mostly to strengthen morale, but would slow down the charge before reaching the enemy formation, so there would not be any real "clash".

anyway, I don't see any thing quite useful for the game. some suggestion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, alre said:

I don't see any thing quite useful for the game. some suggestion?

mh some things he said could be fun ideas:

ditches to protect against rams,

camels for the persians (and they scare horses),

more fire arrows to light buildings on fire (possibly a tech?),

testudo gives protection against arrows...

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

- reintroducing the lovely desert biome for mainland, as sahara is something different

- elephants and walrusses should never stop chasing once a unit hit them because that was much more fun

- reintroduce the djungle biome, but without the tigers

- reintroduce the winter biome, but muscocks dont run away, they should not react to hunters (like in good old A23)

- mercenaries should be able to gather resources again and be maybe like in A23

- if a unit gathers meat from any corral animal, it could change to a different corral animal instead of becoming idling

- if a ship trains a unit the unit should first be in the ship instead of the coast

- if a player quits a rated match, the match should be count as lost after some minutes

- introduce loading of matches in multiplayer. basic feature which is missing. many many matches die because of crashes

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the new biomes can obviously be further improved, but in my biased opinion, they look much better than the old ones (and are because of that more fun to play).

@Player of 0AD can you be more specific about why you prefer: the old desert over sahara/ jungle over india and winter over arctic? Purely aesthetic reasons or the resource distribution ect?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, maroder said:

the new biomes can obviously be further improved, but in my biased opinion, they look much better than the old ones (and are because of that more fun to play).

@Player of 0AD can you be more specific about why you prefer: the old desert over sahara/ jungle over india and winter over arctic? Purely aesthetic reasons or the resource distribution ect?

I prefer old desert over sahara, because it had much more extra food it seems. I prefer jungle over india because india has impassable trees which cause lag and turtle matches. I havent looked closely on arctic but I saw now walrusses at all, so it seems to be identical to autumn now.    
So, it would be possible to have just all biomes, the new ones and the old ones. The old ones could get a graphical redesign if you like, I dont care bout that ; )

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My biggest gripe currently is that the random civ option isn't very random. With nearly all tgs having everyone go random, it's annoying that Mauryans, Kushites, Iberians and Ptolemies are in basically every single one and frequently multiple of them, while the Athenians and Macedonians are such a rarity. Obviously, it comes down to intended old design of it but I'd rather we get rid of it and have every civilization at an equal chance.

The second thing I'd love improved are the hotkeys. The ground work has been laid and I think the game allowing players to place buildings and select buildings with hotkeys would be great. Currently autociv is basically a necessity for providing them.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charging.
If you are ever going to have it as a deliberate feature, now is the time since we have recent experience with its inadvertent implementation via the formation bug. If not now then it's time to definitively nix it from the planned features list. Then those of us who were interested in it can stop holding our breath and either get to work creating our own private forks of find other games to play.

Support for multi-weapon units. Same sort of story. I want my pilum throwing, sword swinging hastati.

A more fleshed out concept for the core land battle counter-cycles.
It seems to me that in terms of tactical application, there are really only 3 meaningful military unit types in 0 AD: melee, ranged, and ram/elephant. Yes there are melee cavalry that ought to support some unique tactics, but they are so efficiently countered by spearmen (or mass infantry in general) that there is not a lot for them to do besides raiding.

I would suggest removing the spear attack bonus against cavalry, and instead give cavalry an attack penalty against spears. Also give cav some type of debuffing aura against non spear infantry. I think that would solidify them as an interesting 4th wheel: strong vs ranged and rams but weak to elephants and (spear) melee, without resorting to unhistorical fantasy tropes like Age of Empires' catapults/scorpions, and mind-control monks. 

 

The angst about the changes from alpha 23 to 24 shows that there are a lot of people who want prioritize support for 0 A.D. competitive scene going forward. You can't do that while key feature's of the gameplay are in a perpetual threat of flux. The game still feels to me like it is missing some intended pieces. But if those pieces can't be filled in soon, then you ought to start listening to the growing majority who want to knock it off with the fear of commitment and announce an actual beta.

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

1 hour ago, ChronA said:

It seems to me that in terms of tactical application, there are really only 3 meaningful military unit types in 0 AD: melee, ranged, and ram/elephant. Yes there are melee cavalry that ought to support some unique tactics, but they are so efficiently countered by spearmen (or mass infantry in general) that there is not a lot for them to do besides raiding.

I have experience that differs. You need to find a way to keep the spearmen busy (maybe chasing your melee cav but not hurting them) and kill them with another type of cav that does not contact the spears (javelin or archer cav?). Yes, if you simply send a bunch of melee cav into spearmen you will probably lose, but there are ways both sides can micromanage the battle to see different results.

I do agree with you that there is more unit differentiation needed.

I am in support of a 4th and final upgrade from blacksmith unlocked for pertinent units after the 3rd tier blacksmith upgrade that would be quite expensive (like 400 f, 400 w, 600 m), but give each weapon a boost in uniqueness (for example give slingers and increase in crush dmg or pikes and increase in attack range). Maybe only 1 or 2 civs would be able to research all of these upgrades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ChronA said:

Charging.
If you are ever going to have it as a deliberate feature, now is the time since we have recent experience with its inadvertent implementation via the formation bug. If not now then it's time to definitively nix it from the planned features list. Then those of us who were interested in it can stop holding our breath and either get to work creating our own private forks of find other games to play.

relevant tickets https://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/940 https://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/994 https://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/995 https://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/2319  some inspiration could be taken from this 

 

2 hours ago, ChronA said:

Support for multi-weapon units. Same sort of story. I want my pilum throwing, sword swinging hastati.

This want a lot of people including mods https://code.wildfiregames.com/D368

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 players possibility 

 

better pathinder, more realistic, atm is good for move unit but not beautiful, move a lot of units should take more space. 

more random maps and adapt some no random maps to 8 players also. 

more units, light infantry units, heavy infantry units

better naval fight

better lobby, 1 general chat and chat by language with several windows.

more interaction with the ground (trap, bridge, fire at tree, stone wall and roman wood wall= way like strangold (rts game)

more sound effect and more missile effect

 

Edited by Dakara
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Anonymous Games"

Game hosting could be done in two phases:

  • Overt Team Selection
  • Covert Civ Selection (maybe positions too).

Overt Team Selection:

This is the phase where teams select players for game balance.

Covert Civ Selection:

This is the phase where player names are obfuscated and their Civs are seen to enemy team as "Hidden."  When game launches names are assigned from the ruler names that each civ has in those text files.  Additionally, players from one team can't chat with players from other team.  This inability to chat continues throughout the match.  Replays have real player names attached but they note that the game was an "Anonymous Game."

Reasons:

When playing team games you know which players to gank/attack first.  You know that if you succeed or don't succeed what the outcome likely is.  This is counter-intuitive to the idea of a "fog of war."  That is, this is the equivalent of having a pre-explored map. 

This leads to the following problem:  In team games you won't see high rank players rushing low rank players.  You will see low rank players rushing high rank players and intentionally looking for them on the map.  If a low rank player successfully rushes a high rank player its a problem for the team whose player was rushed.

Covert Names/Civilization selection makes this strategy not useful.  That is, you really need to be exploring and paying attention during the game.  You don't know if high ranked player is civ A or civ B and who even that high rank player is.  This prevents "knocking out" players by singling them out on the map with rushes.

Edited by Dizaka
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the idea of not letting the enemy know who is who so that special players don't get bullied by 4v1  just because others are scared of them. However, I don't think  it is necessary to ban all communications because it is in one's best interest to not reveal anything about the locations of your team, so it obviously won't happen. Even in TGs now you never see players telling their enemy where they are, unless they want to trash talk each other into resigning or bait the enemy's rush troops into a trap. Both of these are valid social engineering strategies in my opinion. 

However, you can still identify people by their build order, civ and base layout etc

  • Like 1
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...