All Activity

The spartan bonus for women can be easily rephrased to refer to just "citizens" and justified by the strict Spartan discipline. EDIT: It's Fertility Festival, not Female Festival. I guess we don't have to change the tech name, but only the tooltip. The same for Loom.

Athens: Politēs Athēnaîos (Athenian Citizen) Britons: Carthaginians: Gauls: Han: Iberians: Kushites: Macedonians: Politēs Makedonikḗ (Macedonian Citizen) Mauryas: Persians: Ptolemies: Romans: Cīvis Rōmānus (Roman Citizen) Seleucids: Sparta: Politēs Spartiátēs (Spartan Citizen) Also keep in mind the names don't always have to translate to "{Civ} Citizen," it could also be something like Han Peasant, or Gallic Artisan, or anything like that to add cultural flavor.

Rome: Cīvis Rōmānus (Roman Citizen). Greek city states (Athens, Sparta, Macedonia): Polítēs (Citizen).

https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/pulls/8062 Please suggest GenericNames and SpecificNames.

Gotta chomp those Rice Krispie Treats.

This guy's voice is terrible.

Kinda makes sense if you think about Age of Empires games, where even their versions of champions, "Unique Units," have upgrades that make them even better. -> -> May I propose that the Spartan Champion have a 3-tier upgrade system that goes (GenericNames) Spartiate -> Bodyguard Spartiate -> Olympic Champion Spartiate; Village -> Town -> City phase.

How does the AI handle it?

...and that would be indeed a neat add-on indicating which CC is under attack ("Amphipolis is under attack by <Name of opponent>").

I hope you'll excuse this quite massive bump: Since today (UTC+2) there is this new ticket #8055 (Feature: City Names)-opened by op.

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.