All Activity

Praise

What animation do you use there?

Even at baseline gather rate, you would still be much slower if everyone else has an access to a tech to make berries faster. Tech pairs sole purpose is to eliminate this choice, which is why I entirely dislike them. Everyone doesn’t research every technology. Even for the techs that most people do get, they don’t get them at the same time. I suggest you look inward and question whether you are yet to discover other strategies that other players have. And, if the situation you describe did occur (which it hasn’t) then you could just adjust cost/benefits so that it doesn’t happen every time for every player.

The hunting tech shouldn't change the berry gather rates. It should just improve hunting. Forget about multiplayer for a second. The game needs to be fun to play first and foremost. If the game is fun, players will discover strategies and counter-strategies. Fun games have choices that are risky, but rewarding. If you devolve a game to a literal spamfest where everyone can get everything in every match (we still don't restrict technologies per civ! AoE 1 had that in 1997), you lose a lot of replayability.

Add something like this to the unit template: <UnitAI> <DefaultStance>violent</DefaultStance> <RoamDistance>8.0</RoamDistance> <RoamTimeMin>2000</RoamTimeMin> <RoamTimeMax>8000</RoamTimeMax> <FeedTimeMin>15000</FeedTimeMin> <FeedTimeMax>60000</FeedTimeMax> <Formations disable=""/> </UnitAI>

Very awesome, successful games have these attributes. I don't oppose it at all.

It’s also why I dislike how you can only train a hero once. Different heroes might be best at different phases of the game and I shouldn’t lose the ability to adjust back and forth within the game. I can understand if your enemy kills your hero but I am talking about a situation where I voluntarily want to change heroes back and forth.

It isn’t. You have lost the choice to do that and the strategy associated with that. Every civ has the berry tech. It was in the game for many alphas. If I chose the hunting tech, which make berry gathering slow, and you later discover that there are a lot of harvestable berries on the map then you will be much slower than all other players that did the berry tech. Pareto is if you just add a hunting tech that makes hunting faster without eliminating the ability to be berries. As a principle matter, I don’t like anything that hinders your ability to adjust later. Tech pairs by definition do that

Not quite the same thing. OP is asking about making Gaia units wander around like deer do. In Gallic Fields, a Gaia soldier is spawned and tasked to go to a certain point.

But it is, in my example. I'm not talking about combining existing techs into pairs.

But it’s not. It eliminates a road that you can take. For example, the Maurya berry or hunting tech can ruin you. If you pick the berry tech and it turns out the map is super hunt heavy and everyone goes cav hunting then you’re in trouble. Opposite is true too. it’s only Pareto if it doesn’t take away other options. I see little reason to have tech pairs as opposed to bust adding a tech

Sure, but in my example you didn't have that choice at all before the 2nd tech was added. It's additive in this example.

Their argument is that you've now lost the opportunity to get the paired tech later in the match, should the circumstances change. You won't get that needed advantage. They don't realize that by losing one advantage, you have gained another. Using the old tech pairs as an example. If you researched "Iron Axe Heads" instead of the "Wheelbarrow", your Citizens now have faster wood gather rate, but lose the ability to carry additional resources. Your opponent chose the "Wheelbarrow", and now his Citizens chop wood slower, but can carry extra resources. This is just one example, but I don't see any game-breaking choices here.

I think this is a bit myopic. If you have a tech. This tech has been in the game for several alphas now (as most eco techs have been). But in the next release this tech has another tech paired to it, what have you lost? Haven't you now gained an additional choice? Tech pairs are great for certain cases, like some unique techs. But If you make everything a choice of one over the other (like all the eco techs maybe), you are forcing a very black and white strategy on players. In my opinion, picking a path down a specialization tree isn't good strategy, that's why I oppose choosing heroes at game start, aoe4's monument system, and civilization specialization upon phase up.

Ironically enough, trenches/ditches were definitely used by the ancients in pitched battles and during sieges.

I think this is a bit myopic. If you have a tech. This tech has been in the game for several alphas now (as most eco techs have been). But in the next release this tech has another tech paired to it, what have you lost? Haven't you now gained an additional choice?

Yes, but I'm not always near the PC. Sometimes I make changes from outside(in the archives), far from my PC's repository. I've noticed that we need to support changes from here to put pressure on the devs.As if we were cheerleaders. They don't prioritize having certain features like gameplay. I've modified some games as an amateur, but I've deleted none of them, and they had a JS. Many have XML.

commit your changes here it's easier when help is needed to see the bigger picture. They have different workflows and standards though. Code will be reviewed and the idea needs to fit with the game. Sometimes you make patches and nothing happens with it. With that said you can learn a lot by making patches through input of other more experienced people and your code quality will improve. I'd suggest starting with small simple patches though to get into the dynamics. It's fine, 0 A.D. is the first game i learned modding and took me a while to figure most things out aswell and i'm still learning.

I don't think developers of any game should be forcing strategies, they should naturally come about given the circumstances of play. Thats the problem i have with overusing tech pairs.

If you win by min 10 then, yes. You are showing your ignorance in this thread. Again, I suggest you play multiplayer.

I made a compact version from the last version I had of unitsAI.js UnitAI~convert.js

The Colossus of Constantine looks impressive.

We are strictly talking about eco techs here. You can skip any tech to get more military, but is that really the best choice in mid to long term? Rushing is also an all-in strategy that basically skips techs. Phasing up fast, yes. Followed by immediately getting those eco techs that you ignored up til now. If you don't get them, you are way behind, no matter that you're in Town phase 1 minute before the enemy.

RPG games have been heavily dumbed-down ever since Oblivion. In Morrowind, if you played fairly, you had a choice of mostly +2, +3 and +4 (if you were very lucky) attribute points per level up. But, players figured out that, by leveling up your Misc skills that don't contribute to leveling but still count towards attribute bonuses, you can always get +5 bonuses at each level up. So, there was a profound choice: you either role-play and have fun with the game, or you play a boring game with numbers. In Oblivion, you could do the same, but the enemies would get stronger each level up. This prompted players to go a step further, to limit the amount of level ups they do. What does this have to do with our RTS game? Well, if every eco tech is crucial, and every civilization can get every economic tech, what choice do players have? The most logical choice is to get all techs, ASAP. We can't really role-play in this game. Therefore, pair-techs are one way to make the player take a risk and have consequences for his/her actions. To force players to have a "strategy", if you will.