All Activity

What are you talking about, this is the slowest rts I've ever played in my life, and I've played a lot. 0 a.d you can easily beat anyone with an average apm of 60.

The game is a bit deserted... but it's still enjoyable.

This is an OOS change so maybe could be tested in @borg-'s balancing mod or the Com mod by @real_tabasco_sauce

Since that happened this WE I looked into it, and got a grasp of the problem. The prices are currently driven by the number of transactions and not the volumes they generate. So one can drive the price of a resource then benefit from large transactions, therefor overall generating resources. Currently the formula multiply some constants to sold amount (which is equivalent to number of transactions, as sold amounts are fix), if you change it to bought amount, large transaction affect the price more, and generating resources from this 'Pump and Dump' no longer works => The only way to have barter efficiency over 100% will now be if ANOTHER player oversold a resource, and the amount you can generate is now proportional to the amount he lost. Which is very likely the behavior intended in the first place.

See: https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/issues/8051

Under certain conditions, the market can be pumped exploited with OP trades that will generate infinite resources. Below is one example of the exploit: One needs to firstly invest 3000 metal to buy some other resources, e.g. food, to really depreciate the metal value and raise the food value. Then you take 500 food to trade back more than 3000 metal - you end with a net profit in metal. Furthermore, the food is still highly valued and you can buy huge quantities of other resources with food, resulting in resources being generated from nowhere. However, this is not consistently working. I tried to reproduce this but did not get these profitable values like Cube did. After many trades, I was eventually able to generate 10K metal after spending 2000 food and 2500 wood (profit?) Ideally we make changes to the bartering mechanism to prevent this from happening.

Could be. Although if you read the story we the devs back then actually proposed a game before age of mythology

It seems to me that this system was copied from Age of mythology.

wtf no, it so fast 11Min you can be 120-200 pop in tg , if we boost the boom, we destroy more cav rush

Oh interesting. I hadn't heard the reasoning before but it makes sense.

warcraft 3 and aoe 2 is 0,25 sec if i'm right, so it's ok

Interestingly, there is a difference between HP and armor bonus when it comes to healing: the armor doesn't reduce healing as it does taking damage. That would make an armor bonus stronger than a HP one. When Ptolemies had this cavalry hero that gave extra 40% HP to pikemen in his aura, you could heal the pikemen faster by moving them out of the aura. I remember playing some games from the times before the exponential armor system, and there seemed to be a problem where if a unit or building had more armor points than you had damage points, you wouldn't be able to cause damage to it anymore. And so there was a hard-coded minimum of 1 HP damage (one other detail is that nowadays the HP uses the fractional part, even if it's not shown). That could mean that you were better off using a greater number of very weak units (like archers) because you had the the guarantee of at least 1 HP per arrow shot.

turns are calculated 5 times each second, so depending on your input, there could be up to a 0.2 second delay for a unit to act on your orders. In laggy games with 8 players, this is exacerbated by slower players since simulation waits for the slowest players to "catch up". with substantial performance improvements, it could be lowered to 0.1 sec.

did you try in 1vs1 with someone of your region? you will see , it's good

Hi all, wanted to give a little rant. For an RTS game where you are doing many actions very quickly and need a decent response speed from units having a reliable latency is needed. Its not fun for me when the there is a serious delay between my order and when it actually happens. In single player there is a delay as well but its much faster compared to pvp. Anyone else experience something similar?

About zram, I would suggest starting to use lz4 (it should be faster) rather than zstd, given you already have plenty of RAM. Then, you may want to consider upgrading to Debian testing/13, it has already less known bugs than 12 ( https://bugs.debian.org/release-critical/ ) and it can support building 0ad using its packages, other than natively having 0ad 0.27.0.

Hi! This error is often caused by a blocked port, especially if you are playing through your own server or connecting directly. Here are a few things to try: Open UDP port 20595 in Windows Firewall settings: Go to Control Panel > System and Security > Windows Defender Firewall > Advanced settings. In the Inbound Rules section, create a new rule, select "Port", then "UDP", enter 20595 and allow the connection. Check your router settings (if you are creating a server at home): You need to set up port forwarding for UDP 20595 to your computer's IP. Antivirus exceptions: Make sure that the game itself and the port are not blocked by Windows Defender. Add them to the exceptions list. Run as administrator: Sometimes just running the game with administrator rights helps. If all this does not help, try temporarily disabling the firewall and checking the connection - this way you can definitely understand whether it is the problem. Good luck!

1. Zram? In my opinion, this invention should be gotten rid of. It may be the cause of delays. The Linux kernel has everything it needs. Now, memories are fast - why waste time on additional compression and decompression? This whole zram is an illusion - if someone has too little RAM, it is better to add physical memory. If anything - 'tmpfs' is more necessary. 2. Compiling 0ad is not difficult. I recommend compiling ver. 0.27.1 rc: https://releases.wildfiregames.com/rc/ But on Debian Bookworm (12.11) you will not compile this version, because the requirements for 'rust' have been raised (Bookworm has ver. 1.63, and a minimum of 1.66 is required). There is a way to do this: https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/127464-debian-bookworm-129-rustup-successful-compilation-of-0270-rc2/#comment-592272 If you are afraid that the compilation will clutter your system with various unnecessary packages, you can always compile on Debian Live https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/release/current-live/amd64/iso-hybrid/ You have to remember that directories on Live are created in RAM, and compiling 0ad requires a lot of space, so you have to attach external memory and create a compilation directory on it. But be careful - this memory must have a Linux file system (e.g. ext4), because fat32, exfat do not support symlinks and compilation will fail. After compilation is complete, we move the 'binaries' directory with the 'data' and 'system' subdirectories to the target location. The remaining compilation directories are unnecessary. Best regards

https://www.indiedb.com/games/0-ad/news/a-year-in-review "Since the last IOTY we have added two of the remaining civilizations: the Iberians and the Carthaginians. In the upcoming Alphas we will add the final two, the Persians and the Romans." The game was meant to be much more humble originally. There's a lot of interesting points in the article.

Maybe we should adjust the answer to the corresponding FAQ. IMO: Abandoning the alpha-versioning doesn't mean the community is resilient enough for a murderous increase of players and need for moderation due to a listing in Steam etc. I take over the 'disgusting place'-argumentation of @Seleucids. Have you used the search function of the forum software with the query 'steam'? There are many more arguments than the ones stated in this thread.

On some of the maps all the enemies are completely passive. They don't build anything or expand their population. It's the case for example in White Cliffs of Dover (5). Difficulty settings doesn't matter.

I'm thinking about adding this question and answer to the FAQ. But I need some time. If someone's willing to add it earlier, I'd be happy.