All Activity

1) Does the number beside the sword icon show the current total damage, or some derivative stat like DPS? It should show all damage types, because of the way damage reduction is calculated in 0 A.D. Example: (sword icon) 3.8 (arrow icon) 6.0 On mouse hover: Damage: 3.0 + 0.8 hack / 5.0 + 1.0 pierce This way, we can also show upgrades cleanly, without cluttering the UI. 2) Movement speed stat is redundant here, no need to show it on combat stats. 3) The icons that are showing resistance levels should look a bit nicer. Too much blue. Perhaps it could look better like this: (gray armor icon similar to AoE2 or AoM) 4/4/15 On mouse hover over the armor icon: Resistance: 3+1 hack / 3+1 pierce / 15 crush You don't need to know it by the time you've learned the game. But new players need to know, and even one of the veterans didn't know about the hack damage of halberdiers. So, more obvious display of stats is desirable.

I like the way vanilla does it. You dont need to know any damage or resistance numbers, really. Atleast not of your own units while playing. Either you know how to use your units, then that knowledge is way more useful than a damage stat, or you dont, in which case the stat wont really help you. And you shouldnt see your enemies upgrades anyway. If anything, you should find out about them by doing some sort of spy tech. So not showing the units stats at all is perfectly fine, and having the option to look at a breakdown of all stats is useful if you want to strategy-craft, make balance-change mods or just calculate stuff for fun.

I prefer that the more stats possible are displayed and not having some hidden. But @guerringuerrin indeed, It would be nice to not look like in this meme you posted every time you need to figure out what is the stats of a unit, or how much upgrades enemy has. And the tooltip with the 40 stats vomit could/is still available, just the breakdowns are much faster to read / easier to understand.

This is an example for the opposite point because in aoe2 there are lots of different hidden stats per unit that aren't shown. Its actually a great system to only show the basic stats of the unit, because showing all the stats would take up too much space and cloud out critical basic stats that can change with upgrades. I'd say going from this: To this: Is definitely an improvement in that direction

This is an example for the opposite point because in aoe2 there are lots of different hidden stats per unit that aren't shown. Its actually a great system to only show the basic stats of the unit, because showing all the stats would take up too much space and cloud out critical basic stats that can change with upgrades. Players in aoe2 actually learn the massive variety of different unit and civ specific bonuses and technology effects without having to see them. For example the light cav doesn't say that it has +10 versus monks which is essential for gameplay, but players simply learn this by doing (or looking at wikis/tutorials).

The flatpak should have had the update for a while. Maybe try flatpak update in your terminal if the software center is acting strange.

Interesting breakdown! It's cool to see how the civ roster evolved over time, especially with the splits starting in Alpha 10. Helps give more historical depth to each faction.

0 A.D. had a pre-planned roster of civilizations, that was fulfilled by Alpha 9. Starting with Alpha 10, Hellenes civilization was split into Spartans, Athenians and Macedonians. Additionally, the team decided to include more civilizations. Original civilizations are: Hellenes Celts (split into Gauls and Britons in Alpha 11) Iberians Carthaginians Persians Romans

Here:

market is fixable ? and how

This is perfectly fine to do if its not a arranged pump of two players. Bad: 2 players decide to split the cheat one sells 100 batches of food for wood - sends the wood to the other player only for him to sell it for food in 500 batches. Normal: As a player notice good prices at the market and decide to convert resources for profit. Bad: Have a bot checking price fluctuations and automate converting resources at good prices

Sure I guess one thing is to use the market another to exploit a vulnerability. I guess the important thing is this has been noticed and could be a fix of its mechanic to avoid this kind of exploits in the future

Yes but if another player do the first part of trade, you are the second player and you need use the market...

I think it becomes very evident when someone sell one Resource to buy another, incurring clear and significant losses, only to later use the second Resource (which was purchased very inefficiently) to buy back the first one or other assets with exorbitant yield rates. As can be seen in the Cube screenshot from the first message in this thread. And one could say the same kind of technique was used here: So the question is: why would someone make such inefficient trades, only to quickly reverse them with the exact same trade in the opposite direction? So if my math is correct, what Arup did was: First Trade 2800 Food for 1462 Wood Secondly Trade 2000 Wood for 3940 Food So u can do the maths 3940 - 2800 = 1140 FOOD 2000 - 1462 = 538 Wood And in the end is like he trade 538 Wood for 1140 Food. Which is like get 211 Food for every 100 Wood

are we sure it normal ? its depend the game , if the wood have a big value compare food.. if one player really need food and have too much wood.. what he has to do finally? how he is supposed to know its cheat or no cheat

The old 0 A.D. start screen/menu (alpha 6 Fortuna).

Thanks @ffm2 for noticing this. So I dug into this bug and this is actually due to a typo in vanilla, while ModernGUI have the correct identifier "barterEfficiency" instead of the misspelled "barterEfficency" found in vanilla summary. Edit: Nobody will makes a PR for a typo I guess so I've just overwritten the faulty function so its fixed anyways for ModernGUI.

Wait so you updated the mod? To work for current version?

I don't think this is a productive conversation. But apart from that your team percentages are the individual percentages summed up. I can't reproduce that bug in vanilla.

My point is the tooltip isn't actually describing the DPS — it's describing the unit's combat stats. 7.2 (+1.1) damage at 1.25 second intervals. At no point does it show the calculation based on the damage dealt in one second (the 6.6 shown the hovering element) BUT... ...I get your point here. Makes sense. Hack Damage Reduction seems a good choice Yeah it's pretty the same way as aoe2 shows it but using brackets. It's not that obvious but I agree with you: let's avoid cluttered ugliness Your hopes has been heard. @vanz sorry for flood your thread with off-topic discussion

I don't understand why. That would be rather confusing, the tooltip should start by describing what is the element you are hovering, and in this case it's the DPS. Agree, but I was talking about trying to reduce the texts on the lines where stats are displayed, the small description below ofc aren't a diminishing the readability. I would prefer not call the damage reduction % be called "Bonus Resistance" to not be confused with a bonus like in dps, but indeed "Resistance to Pierce attack" is maybe not the best, so i named it "Hack Damage Reduction". It's rather obvious anyways that it is a reduction from incoming attacks. It might not be that obvious that the (+1) here is the bonus, however if i try to any variation of : 3 Base (+1 Bonus) Hack Resistance Points it becomes ugly... So I think I'll leave it like this and hope I'll pass the@guerringuerrin validation

I'd still group the Bonus Damage with the weapon section and remove "per Second" but I guess there are some limitations for that? You could change "bonus" for "Bonus" to match text format But anyways, comparing both versions the new one looks so much cleaner now. Nice work! I guess in the case of Resistance I would do: Pierce Resistance Level 1 (+2) Pierce Resistance Points 27% Bonus Resistance or the other way Pierce Resistance Level 27% Bonus Resistance 1 (+2) Pierce Resistance Points which would match much more the Damage tooltip stats order. And adding "against pierce attacks" seems redundant as it's already specified in the tooltip's title Regarding amount of text, I think that as long as you keep a clear layout of each attribute's values (like in this case), adding descriptions at the end of the tooltip contributes to a more detailed understanding of the different combat stats.

There there, you were right, too much indents . I tried few things around your suggestions and that's what I think is best. Added some details for buildings too so that it's easier to differentiate base arrows and arrows from garrison too. Thoughts?

I don't think that building of the source is required. The only thing that needs to be done is to modify the hero unit templates and restrict the training limit in a JS file. I see there's BuildLimits.js file, but I need a similar one for units.

Yeah I'm aware of that! Still feels off in the context of the tooltip. If you want to keep the indentation, I feel like only two indents would be better than three