All Activity

My name: calimeroakadds Unfortunately another player that quits a game, when I need to do a Phonecall and informing properly. Insulting me in the game and afterwards also in the lobby. Playername: ad1414 commands.txtmetadata.json

Buenos días o tardes; -Aquí la actualización de los Arsácidas(Parthians) (Se describe el imperio ,como uno extremadamente rico, con hermosas ciudades, y quiero reflejar eso) -Me inspiro en las ciudades fundadas por ellos (Nissa, Ctesifonte, Hatra...), no en las conquistadas, así parecen más únicas, originales y auténticas. -También @Lopess y yo pensamos en un bonus o tecnología especial, que los edificios tuvieran dos fases; Fase 1 o "nómada" con yurtas. fase 2 o “sedentaria” con construcciones de piedra. -Cuando construyes cada edificio, aparece como una yurta, y cuando eliges uno, pagas un extra, y ese edificio específico cambia (cambia su aspecto al de piedra,ya no se puede desmontar y trasladar,se vuelve más fuerte, tiene más área cultural, genera más población, más rango de visión, con algunas tecnologías más... etc.) (Para reflejar su cultura seminómada...y darle una jugabilidad interesante) -¿Qué opinan? Disculpen las molestias*

True that, it's an REAL TIME Strategy game. Time is important. Can't really agree with this. There are some issues in the early game that can be addressed, but the strategy is there. You can't just spam random units and win, no matter what APM you have. In the end, your army composition matters. Is a very different game, where attrition warfare can make the matches last for hours. Infinite resources are generally a bad thing. 0 A.D. has infinite food (from farms), but the scarcity of other resources makes sieges and area denial possible (hence more strategic depth) . It is technically possible to have infinite resources in 0.A.D. using long trade routes with lots of traders, but that is a very late game thing offset by the high opportunity costs. I don't know. The last time I checked, Seleucids were still there.

I used to play multiplayer but I really can’t keep up the pace especially on 1v1 despite knowing the game. Team game is better on 4v4 because the more players the game slows down. But I totally agree that the game is very APM type like AoE and really lacks strategic mechanism. It became very tedious and yes the faster you click the better you are in this game. It’s just build, build, gather, gather and spam units on multiple barracks or stables. Unlike Rise of Nations you have to be strategic on so many aspects that all units up to enlightenment age are very precious despite resources can be gathered infinitely. Units in 0ad are very dispensable and except probably the Iberian champion cavalry it’s really futile to train other champions. Units and buildings don’t increase in price so spamming is prevalent.

Okay, thanks for this information

1400 is an ELO score (how strong a player is rated, like in chess); new players start with a default of 1200. The lobby is the place you go when you click on multiplayer, like a hotel lobby, where everybody meets,chats, makes new games.

Hello, Thanks for all this advice You said: I hope to see you soon on 1400 ! If you see me in the lobby, contact me for more in-depth advice! Yes, but what's 1400 and lobby ? I don't know English. Sorry, I'm new.

An epic battle against a Hard Roman AI. I won't spoil much SeleVSRome_Hard.zip

You don’t need too much Econ to beat any AI on single player up to the most aggressive and hardest ones. As most recommended just play slow, and raid them. Only if you’re playing MP you need to manage a lot of things.

If you post them here i might be able to help you find them

buenos días o tardes; -Aquí la actualización de la maravilla sueva: (En unos días estará disponible en el mod Endovélico) Disculpen las molestias*

I am not sure you are? It is possible to make nothing but women and champs. If you work out a good build order for that, it might even be quite strong, since you only really need 40 champs to win against a full cs army (130 units). There is not much more the game can do to make them feel that way, though. I mean, if you choose to use them as your only army, you can (and many do, I agree with you on that), but its not a very good idea, since they are a lot weaker than champs. I mean, I can choose to only make villagers in AoE and use them as my army, the game doesnt "prohibit" that, but i will lose. likely, if your enemy makes champs and you dont, you will lose.

Meh I think it can be done pretty nicely with good impacts on how the game is played. So it’s certainly worth trying out. When I get an SSD and time, I’ll set up something in a com mod version. I'm sure it will have balancing consequences.

we are working on that in historical too. Maybe share on server how some of the civs practice it differently?

Implementing a feature based on slavery could make a lot of differences. Firstly, it would be much more realistic and historical. Secondly, it would bring more differences between civilisations because they didn't practice slavery in the same way. Thirdly, slaves could be much more efficient at harvesting resources. The citizen soldier would therefore be more versatile and more defensive.

Change is not inherently bad. It's just bad execution. There is clearly room for improvement in the implementation of territory and capture features. Changing the default is understandable.

While I'm in the minority that believes the change was good, attacking buildings without siege or a good number of elephants is currently a waste of time (in vanilla version, not Community mod).

Age of Empires has always had many excellent mods. The only constraint is that the definitive edition now receives numerous updates, which discourages modders.

Honestly, it was probably one of the clumsiest and most immature changes ever made. Currently it is a hidden feature most new players won't see and understand. The information is buried in the manual and the list of hotkeys. Clearly, it should have a button in the UI. Don't forget that you're in a bubble and that other people don't follow all your discussions all the time.

While logically sound, this is not really reflected in the gameplay and the current meta. Most of the time, you're just spamming mass CS until you or your enemy wins. Also, let's not forget about the CS cavalry. AoE is not open-source. It is also rather bland with every civilization feeling the same. I'm talking mostly about AoE2 here. AoE3 and 4 are not my cup of tea. They are not treated as such. Often, they are your only army, even in the late game. I'm forced to train soldiers, even though I don't need to. Soldiers cost both wood and food, but I need wood for stuff at the start. When the AI suicides his army, he suicides his eco, as well. Etc. Will do.

The content of Public must be balanced, fair and stable for multiplayer games, both 1v1 and team games situations. The MP lobby is the biggest stakeholder of balancing, as they are the most sensible to and dependent on fair balancing. Any small perturbation can ruin an alpha's gameplay. On the other hand, single players can just rig the game settings to whatever they like . If they want some change, just make a mod. It's impossible to distribute a mod to everyone in the lobby. Even community mod and historical mod are still not popularised despite the advertising efforts. It's safe to say that most players will be stuck to whatever the alpha has by default.

And what do you want from those "30 people", other than that they should kiss the feet of you and the other 10 people that complain about the core gameplay? Hehe. But no, please keep giving feedback on everything you see that could be improved (but stay civil in the discussion. This game has as much of a mp fanbase as a sp one).

Why? If this is not just an opinion you wanted to share with us, but an argument, you have to convince others that this is true. I mean, the current system makes sense logically; every man that can work as a lumberjack or miner can also be called to fight in war. Those conscripts would not be the best fighters, but they would be plentiful. Professional fighters on the other hand cost lots of money, but are a lot stronger. Those would be mercenaries and nobility/bodyguards/temple guards. Ingame, the second category is represented by champs. Ok, that was my cent about the logic part... but how about gameplay? In his original post, @Deicide4u mentioned that the cs concept was which I interpreted as the first argument, even though it is (merely?) an argument of personal opinion. I am not sure how many people that come from AoE have this opinion (I myself dont), but if you like the way AoE did it, why not stay in AoE? (And I dont mean to tell you to leave, we all love to have more people here, but sometimes certain games just arent made for certain people). It was continued on with which is presented as a desirable goal without argumentation, while simultaneously already being the case; champs and mercs are fighting units, cs are just poor citizens you told to get a sword and fight in your war. As a third point, we have the feeling that 0ad starts too quick; and this point, I actually agree with, but its just a design choice/preference issue. Many players love the fact that a 1v1 round of 0ad only takes between 5 and 20 minutes. (while a 1v1 in AoE can easily take up to an hour) Lastly, I want to ask a question; Why is it a problem if "booming equals turtling"? This is only really an issue if you accept the notion that there needs to be 3 types of strategies (booming, rushing and turtling), which have to be differentiateable and counter each other. But why would 0ad have to follow this notion? What exactly is the problem with the gameplay right now? (in your eyes) I already commented a bit on the way I see it, but I will reiterate; which is true, but doesnt mean you lose the fight, if you catch your opponent by surprise or use stronger units (mercs, naked fanatics, cavalry), or just have better upgrades since you went p2 sooner. here I unfortunately chose the word "soldier" to refer to a citizen (cause they are citizens foremost and soldiers secundarily). But I still dont see this as a problem; as @Deicide4u pointed out, you dont want to give the player a unit thats too versatile right from the start.

A wise man once said: He was right. Fine. I might try this one day.

No. This is exactly what makes 0ad different and we would like to keep it that way. Many of your ideas are trivial to achieve with mods which you can make yourself in 10 minutes.