All Activity

First attempt at a civic conter for the goths, i will design others models just in case.

Thanks! yes I will definately add some green for grass or moss, maybe small stones etc. Just want to make sure the UV layout is final before I do the colours. Btw., would it be useful to have summer/winter/autumn/spring textures? Is the game using it appropiatly? Having a green mound in winter might seem odd.

I think that looks really good. Personally, I'd recommend using a slightly different color for the dirt mound part because it is very similar to the color of the stones.

What do you guys think about this setup? Seems to me round is better than square. Also not sure where to place the steles. Could put one or more on top as well. Since most of these is organic stuff I don't see much possibilities for repetitive texture usage in the uv (despite reusing the stones), or am I missing something?

I'm not sure but IIRC units have preferences with regards to their target e.g. the Elephant class. Oh no, I was asking about the rangefinder (maybe its the rangefinder..). Ie, say 2 units are exactly the same distance away from my archer, how is the tie broken? Even if it isn't wanted for building AI, I think it might be helpful for a number of reasons to have a "coarse" rangefinder for situations like these, ie finding the unit's position to the nearest x meters where x could be 5, 1, 0.5, 0.1, etc. Then maybe x could be a property in the templates. For instance, archers have a bit of a problem with overkill, so you could set X to be 3 or 5, so that they more often choose different targets. Then for short range units, something like 0.5 could be used. In buildingAI, it could inherit an array of the closest units and target randomly from those. That way with the fort you could set x to 5 so that the closer units are shot when they are farther away, but when the fort is surrounded, you kind of have a "fire at will" appearance, shooting the closest at random. might be kind of a mess though for buildingAI, because a ton of functions would probably need to use arrays where they don't already.

yeah I tried to set up a pause between firing rounds, but I couldn't figure it out. I think it would improve readability and the micro options. Anyways thanks everyone for the ideas for improvement. I'll use these ideas to better refine the non-random approach the next time I introduce it sometime in a27.

https://www.instagram.com/0ad_memes_eae/ Be sure to follow for the most nub 0 AD memes !

https://sogdians.si.edu/introduction/ Sogdian weapons for cavalry Sogdian cavalry Sogdian cavalry (H4) Sogdian monarch Link: https://jfoliveras.artstation.com/

If we're going with a realism argument, random arrows make more sense. However, if we were going like that, a good arrow hit would one shot the attackers. Even if they weren't dead I'm pretty sure none of us would get up from an arrow in the thigh.

I'd like to applaud @real_tabasco_sauce for the moderation of this opinion, and endorse it as my own view. Ultimately the non-random systems seems like it will have better implications for gameplay. However its balance implications are so convoluted and far reaching that trying to implement it all at once into a larger incremental-rebalance mod is just going to scramble all the other balance goals. However, this idea of having an adjustable number or proportion of arrows, per actor, be non-random sounds very promising to me. I think it should be discussed further. I imagine the implementation would be tunable on a per-unit-class basis through unit templates. That might be your solution to the balance problems. You could walk the proportion up for each building, just until it starts to cause problems, and then wait until a compensatory adjustment can be found before going further, without ever breaking the overall balance (if it were done very cleverly). This would eventually let you transition entirely to non-random if you wanted, or find a happy middle where the gameplay objectives of non-random are achieved, but some random aiming is still present with its own beneficial effects on balance and presentation.

first, units select palpable targets from the preferred class enemy units within range, then minimum distance is used for the final choice.

It is not just a matter of realisme but effectiveness as well . As a player who play every week for a while now with a mosty havely agressive oriented playstyle i noticed that the arrows focus targeting of defensive buildings is not that effective against all kinds of rush , on papers they should be better against rush because of number of arrows and 1 unit target only but in reality it is worse for obvious reasons like arrows are in stream per 4 seconds which can be dodged easier than before with cavalry and that the max number of arrows is actually like 40% less . Beacsue of that a decent army of melée can actually sit under cc for minutes , same thing for towers and forts . i understand the reason for it to be a stream not all at a time arrows + the less max number of arrows is to avoid arrows miss all at once and avoid over kill so for that i think the best way would be to keep it random targeting as it used to before with possibilty of manually targeting 1 units when player wishes with also augmenting the number of maximum arrows and lowering to stream time to a number to be figured and tested .

I'm not sure but IIRC units have preferences with regards to their target e.g. the Elephant class.

thx for the breach .. nah, you are just all a bunch of haters -> It just confirms you are resentful to my charisma

Also valid as a gameplay argument. I'd like my fortress to damage multiple units at a time and I even find it strange some people don't want that. That may be possible in theory but in practice I didn't really feel that much. In AoE2 even towers can kill multiple units at a time. That could be an interesting thing, but if every arrow goes for that unit then the player probably won't have the time to react before the unit dies. Also, having distinguishable arrow volleys would help with that (not saying that's not the case right now, I didn't play recently enough to remember)

I don't think this addresses any of the underlying concerns with buildings' strength in early or late game. It is the same system just watered down and it will have the same effect as decreasing arrow damage, which has already proved undesirable.

I was thinking something like this would be an elegant way to achieve this effect:

you know its my believe that those who are not shy to insult others in a personal way below even the lowest standards for decency should not cry when someone is satirically mocking them back for their arrogant attitude in the game

Oh I agree with no political discussion, people have their own opinions, and usually it turns nasty (which is why it gets banned) but that other thing was nasty too. A little bit of joking is ok if it's in good faith. (Like the borg drink joke) but that other thing seemed a bit mean spirited.

One is related to the game, one is not?

"Someone(s)" on the mod team generally dislike any political discussion. They've also silently killed the "Political Smalltalk" thread, although I don't think there ever was a need for a moderator intervention nor any breach of forum rules.

I think I'm going to have to agree, how come mentioning covid is wrong, but making fun of a player isn't?

What if instead of a building focusing on only one person, it focuses on a few like 2 or 3?

Pr for ruins: https://github.com/TheShadowOfHassen/0-ad-history-encyclopedia-mod/pull/146

So is it a realism argument? Missed arrows damage nearby units. To be fair, the accuracy pretty effectively accomplishes this, especially for forts. Also, the natural movement of units often spreads damage over a handful of units, as the "closest unit" changes often. If the player notices this (not easy, to be fair) keeping that unit in motion will dramatically improve its survival and even decrease the effectiveness of the building arrows. So there is ideally a nice back and forth should a player use the manual targeting like this. I suppose a max number of attackers value could be used sort of like something @wowgetoffyourcellphone proposed a while ago. IMO this approach is heavy-handed. One idea I brough up on overkill discussions was this: add a new range query for determining the closest unit with a flexible degree of rounding. In these large scale battles mentioned by @Feldfeld, what is currently "the closest unit" could be 2 to 5 units, or maybe more. @Stan` is there already some sort of tiebreaking mechanism when two targets are exactly the same distance?