All Activity

@user1 Now scottandersen23 quit a rated game when he started losing. Files attached. metadata.jsoncommands.txt

@user1 HK_10 terminated a rated game without resigning when he started losing. My username is gandalf_deluxe metadata.jsoncommands.txt

That is patently untrue. Fast castle strategies are high risk since they involve surrendering map control and walling your base. This can mean that you can lose access to key resources; the advantage comes in either being able to build two Town Centres to boom economically or potentially do a knight rush, both of which have a means to counter. Playing a game with 115 villagers and only 5 military units is only plausible on a map like Arena, and that sort of greedy strategy can usually be punished. Given the emphasis on micro in Age of Empires battles, smaller armies are a good thing.

One of my friends is a musician and wants to perform some of the soundtracks from the game, specifically the Celtic tracks. It's not for a large concert. It's more on the scale of entertaining people waiting in line to get into fairgrounds or table hopping.

Solutions: 1. Keep suggesting balance to the host until everyone agrees 2. Don't let trolls in. You question unknown users until you are sure that they are here to play and have a decent level. A good question to ask is " how many pop at min 10" 3. Choose civs wisely. Don't do random civs

There is a huge range of skill levels in the lobby so it's often impossible to balance teams perfectly. Even if the player skills are balanced, civs and counter units screw it up again. Having broken champ cavs doesn't help and civs not having basic counter units make it worse. Furthermore, you get smurfs misreporting their level or noob players claiming to be pro just to be allowed into a game. And then there is Geriatrix trolling you with new accounts every day, in which he plays badly on purpose or throws tantrum and ruins the game for everyone. It's also possible for a theoretically stronger team to lose badly because one guy throws the game or if someone ragequits.

There are some efforts. The 1v1 rating in the lobby is a elo rating which could help to some point. A strong player in 1v1 is not weak in team games. Weaknesses: Not everyone plays regularly rated 1v1s and some have low elo on purpose (for fun). Smurf accounts start again at 1200 or they gained their elo years ago and don't play rated again. Local ratings mod rates the players based on their scores. This score usually is skewed for some players. ValihrAnt e.g. is one of the best and rated mediocre. One could develop this further and check where the score lacks. But it would always be a system where you expect a player to act in a way and not rate how successful the team actually is. Local ratings with elo or glicko-2 rating based on pure wins of teams do not get enough games to divide good and bad players from 4v4 games. I did a sketch of this, the results weren't satisfying. Maybe it would work if the databases of 4 heavy players join their databases. A team lobby rating like the 1v1 might work, is untested though. This would also require that games are often labeled as rated. Some players do indeed complain a lot until their team is very unlikely to lose. Ideally the player would lose and win 50% of the games and just rank up in the rating.

It doesn't have to be as complicated as I outlined.

shut uppo! at the end of the day, the gaul heroes are all good. atleast reduce the aura range of verci to 40 or 45 meters.

Honestly, 0 A.D. is a better game. I'm obviously talking about the standard Skirmish and Random map games, since we still don't have any good official campaigns. The main thing for me is, it took a while to understand when exactly to switch to training soldiers. If you get comfortable enough, you will get the timing naturally. It usually coincides with the switch to farming, so once you have your initial farms, making additional women is only desired if more farms are needed to balance the economy. Once you accept that, it's much easier to enjoy the game. You just boom, make units and everything is good. Age of Empires, on the other hand, is a much more stressful game. You need to advance to the Castle age ASAP, or you risk falling behind in relics and economy. We often joke that you need to reach the City phase in 0 A.D. fast, but we at least can make new Civic Centers in the second phase. And, there is no unit conversion by priests. Battles are much more chaotic in 0 A.D. owning to a fact that there is much more fighting units. Boom games in AoE2 can often lead to some absurdity, like having 115 villagers and 5 military units. Anyway, I needed to rant a bit.

Well, yes, in scenario maps custom victory conditions for each team are possible, even for each player. However, the code behind the victory condition "presets" (the ones selectable in game setup -- Regicide, Wonder, Conquest, etc.) is currently not designed to work on a subset of players only.

Thats why you dont let kids balance the game, they try to use some pseudo-logic to buff the units they like more and nerf the ones they dont like. On a more serious note, whether a general lost at the end is not a ideal indicator of their skill. If you only have cs units while your opponent has champs, you can micro-manage them perfectly and still lose... I mean Hannibal lost to Scipio at Zama?

Hi there, I assume that the problem could also lie in the diplomacy settings (i.e. "Are they really an enemy?"). When setting up the match, make sure that their team number is different from yours (or there can be no team number assigned to both players). If the diplomacy mode is enabled (meaning if it's allowed to change your teams during the game), you can try opening the diplomacy setting (icon somewhere in the top right corner) and check if the AI is set to Enemy and not Neutral.

Hi @Amj, welcome to the forums. Make sure you don't have ceasefire enabled at match setup. Try "attack move", CTRL + right click by default. Also make sure your units are on aggressive stance: If your units still don't attack maybe attach a replay here. HTH

Solution? Be the host, or just play 1v1.

One of the worst things about this game the lack of balanced games, it's totally hard to balance games and every time the host is trying to win games by putting the worst players in the second team everytime i'm on the second team it's almost always a lose, because the host only want to win every single darn time

Hi There, Thanks for developing a really nice game I just need to report a bug. Almost all the time, whenever my boats or soldiers are commanded to attack enemy soldiers or boats, they do not attack the enemy and do not cause any damage to the enemy. Instead they just go near the enemy and stand there doing nothing. Can you please look into this and fix this. Kind regards, Amjad

I found this illustration. Eastern Roman Centenarius (Kentarchos, ancient centurio) facing a Hun warrior in the 5th century AD. Ilustración de Pavel Glodek.

Wouldn't it be possible to divide the victory condition by teams? Team 1 victory condition vs team 2 victory condition?

Technically, any victory conditions you can think of are possible in scenario games, since you can mark players as won or defeated at any point in the trigger script (if any desired condition is met). And that can also be done "asymetrically". But to make a victory condition work on any map (also random and skirmish ones) and make it selectable in the game setup, the logic has to be centralised in a designated script -- which, however, isn't inherently more difficult than implementing it for a single map) So, yes, a tower defense scenario would be possible.

Thanks for expanding this. There are some of the nuances that I hadn't thought about as well. It sounds like this would be a bit more complicated/involved mechanic to add to the game.

To be pedantic: Maurian champion archer (woman) add arrows. Most healers (men) don't add arrows. Also the hero Hippocrates does not add arrows. "Per Unit" might be changed to "Per Solidier" to clarify this.

how about a spectator only version for android? users can join the multiplayer lobby and chat, and they can only join games as spectators

I think we should return maiden guards to normal stats as they were, but, let them convert to each other (sword to archer vice versa) same as we do with immortals. otherwise pers and maur will be a bit too similar imo. increase the kushite building auras range as proposed by @Seleucids please buff archers, maybe try the thing @vinme suggested the other day. I'm afraid I can't explain it that well, so vinme, mind listing your suggestions on archers here? another thing I had on the back of my mind: nerf vercingetorix. why does the loser of alesia have almost same stats as Hannibal the great?

Of course. Same. That's why I just unload it so lazy here instead of writing proper git tickets as I should. Sorry for that.