All Activity

Yeah, I'm spitballing here. I'm just saying where the hero comes from for any given civ is basically random, which doesn't feel like good game design. Strong agree. I said this at one point and it was completely dismissed.

A rare case is if you can destroy the gauls just before vercingetorix can spawn. It's definitely necessary to bring an end to games that already drag on with one side having a clear upper hand. Or to break up a siege from maps like ambush. With only 14 % of players researching it, it is also more of a tech for the right circumstances, not something to aim for right ahead. And wonder is an exaggeration of this. I like the current status more over every thing discussed here with that exception of the roman hero from the camp. Also I think each civ usually has one very clear favorite hero. That could be balanced.

Sure. But we're talking vanilla. Com mod is also disliked for that reason, among others, so I don't see that being implemented. And, if it is then @guerringuerrin's complaints will be even more valid. This just leads to booming and turtling. Makes more sense to make an offensive tech be some place else. No reason to give turtling offensive advantages in addition to defense ones.

Thanks @guerringuerrin, yes forts should be defensive structure and not though as medieval castles. It could make sens to let one general purpose tech like wtf in it, as it give turtling another small advantage. In com mod they got buffed, they can 3 shot eles and heros when garrisoned basicaly.

I never thought of it like that but you're right. I dislike it because it makes wtf much more unattainable--you have have resources to build a fort, you have actually build the fort, you lose eco time while building, then you have to research and wait for a very expensive tech. All my same complaints about wonders. Hoops just to have hoops to jump through. Agree. Although a lot of people just build a fort anywhere and it serves little strategic defensive purpose. This is especially true with current building AI/strength. Yeah. But there is not real reason for any of this other than being "different." All this could just as easily be put in any other existing buildings or new buildings all together. A more cohesive framework would be something like iber, a defensive civ, is the only civ to get heroes from the fort , a defensive building, while Rome, an offensive civ, could only get heroes from an army camp, an offensive building. Something else could be Mace being able to train it's siege hero from the siege factory while other heroes are trainable from the CC with longer train times. Right now, it just seems that the building any particular civ uses to train their heroes is random and without any actual purpose (aside from Sele that get heroes from CC more quickly than other civs can).

It does delay the full offensive, but also the exploitation of some uniqueness of the civ. There are probably some civs that could stand to get their heroes earlier. Currently Seles are the only civ that get heroes from cc, which is a unique advantage. I think hero buildings could also include unique techs and some could be made available in p2 depending on civ balance considerations. Basically we have a wide spectrum of different options for how fast a civ should access its heroes and we can make those choices on a case by case basis.

yeah maybe thats the main reason. never liked WTF as it rewards ecoboting race and, as it's placed on fortress, somehow forcing defensive strat again Yeah might not need universal but feels like forcing a civ to build fortress for get the heroe feels somehow like just delaying full offensive strats.

I think this is one of those things that does not need to be universal/standard across civs.

I'm not entirely sure how to post bug reports on the Git but I tried anyway, but I'm posting here as well in the hopes of it being seen sooner. I've downloaded the latest build from https://play0ad.com/ for Windows; I did not use the SVN, and one thing to bring up is I'm missing the Actor Editor. It's okay, though, as I can still develop the game without it (but would love to still have it.) From there, my .dae files for custom structures (NOT Infantry) specifically is causing crashes in the Atlas Editor. All except for one; the Barracks model. I will include two .dae's below, and what will happen is, one will cause the Atlas Editor to crash, and one won't. I will also include the crashlog. I'm using the latest version of Blender as provided by Steam as well to make these .dae models. Specifically, the blacksmith one will be the one that causes a crash, and the barracks one won't. Interestingly, none of my custom infantry has caused the map editor to crash; it's only been structures. As a result, I've been testing my art in-game by doing consecutive skirmish matches over and over and over, and making saves/loads/etc.; while taking screenshots of my units in the Atlas Editor for previews and thumbnails. It would be nice to be able to use the Map Editor to make scenarios with my custom civilization, but this is actively preventing me from doing so. Any help or insight would be greatly appreciated! avian_barracks.dae avian_blacksmith.dae logs.zip

Balancing with how quickly/cheaply you can get a hero and wtf. I personally find hero-dedicated buildings annoying and cluttering of your mental space (i sometimes forget to make the building for civs I play less often, for example) and game maps (it takes up actual space in your base and basically never matters if captured/destroyed). I would rather heroes just train slower/more expensively from the CC than from a dedicated buildings. But I think others disagree and it’s not a hill I’ll die on. Already having a fort makes it easier to eventually get wtf. I don’t think that should be placed in a fort either but that’s a different issue and a relatively low priority one too.

Wouldn't it be better if all civilizations had their own building (or if some had it at the Civic Center and others had a dedicated building) instead of placing it in the Fortress? This forces you to construct a purely defensive building, except in rare cases.

Looking forward to stopping by the stand! Thanks for sharing the details, see you all in the K-building.

That story reminded me this Credits again for https://www.instagram.com/0ad_memes_eae/?hl=es-la

I can imagine that it's a fun lifestyle. I used to know a few ballroom dances, but those are usually only done on special occasions like weddings here. And last time I danced at one, it got me into a minor fight with my wife. It could be something about me touching another woman that she didn't like. We'll never know! So anyway, perhaps I already am beyond the end, where I just don't dance anymore.

Never mind, It was a bug in my main code.

@Boudica Hahaha, I knew one of those was much longer and actually a combination of three names. how could I have missed it!? In the end, this crossword was much more difficult and creative than I expected. Putting aside the controversial -but fun- technique used for some players in 0 A.D., the secret message is a true story and an activity we should all keep doing until the end. And I truly love it, so I’ll keep doing it !

Great job, @guerringuerrin. I missed one of the missing words on the second line, which is the first part of the three-word name that you already found. The remaining letters (left to right, top to bottom) give the secret message. Regarding the smurfs: The puzzle wasn't intended to endorse making alt accounts. Anyway, it just seems comical for someone to have so many of those that you can make a crossword out of them. I believe that the names mostly had been reported in the past. Not sure if they can be logged into, but they still can be found, so it seems that no action has been taken on them. I can remember what felt like a one-off event during which some people were made to use their original account, but that was a long time ago and it might seem like a waste of time reporting the same few guys who can be seen with a new account every month.

I know you're tired of hearing it, but I feel I have to repeat it here once more: Using smurf accounts is a violation of the Terms of Use. If you encounter smurfs or players using duplicate accounts for other reasons, please report them to a lobby moderator.

Hi, How do I change this (custom build) to a real number for my own version? Thanks in advance.

The first two i didn't know about it but I missed the third!

The Flathub version is 27.1, up-to-date since three days ago. We do maintain it.

If you want to play same level just clone yourself... otherwise that not possible. Even we "pros" are not the same...

What seems to be the problem?

Why don't wait until 27.1 ported to flatpak? Flatpak is recommended by developer if you're using Debian (me LMDE). They should've maintained this repo.