Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 2017-10-08 in all areas

  1. (Most of us would agree after a long discussion around a beer/tea/coffee/glass of wine/sake)
    5 points
  2. This is exactly what I mean. Conflict of interest. Online desires are not the same as single player desires... I don't understand how there are still people that don't see this? You're either unwilling, or unable to understand how the majority of single players play the game. For most casual players it's not about a brainless rush to crush your unexplainably aggressive AI-opponent as quickly as possible, nor is it about crunching the numbers and figuring out the perfect "build-order" and unit recruitment schedule. People want to immerse themselves in the game, imagine the town of their dreams. Then build it. Beautify it. Defend it. Expand it. People want to be able to create something unique with every game. Something worth fighting for. People want to fight epic battles. Not build exactly the same base, game after game because "that's the ideal build-order" and then send a handful of people to kill some women and call it an invasion-army.
    4 points
  3. i guess that there are enough civs to have a variegate styles for all of them in the limits of the RTS genre. Probably using a relative movement speed makes the code easier to maintain even if i'd have some critique about it because it is supposed to be used for vision range also ( for example it would make sense to make difference between units and building classes instead of referring everything to the "primitive" unit / structure template which is probably ugly ). ( i am still trying to improve my communication skills ) Im sorry but i have to say that this totally makes no sense for many reasons: This is a game and, just like any other game, it is made of numbers. Far away from a visual novel. gameplay somehow implies balance. i thought that delenda est and other mods focused on aesthetics and "gameplay design". I still can't understand the difference between competitive online gameplay and casual offline if not for some aesthetic ( i take starcraft 2 as example) and some content relative to an hypothetic storyline. I guess that skirmish cavalry spam wins in offline games too. Online keeps the game alive as long as you have friends to play the game with. Online players have to deal with frustrating mechanics almost everyday because OP tactics get viral. basically someone could just let women deal 100 hack damage and let any civ being able to train any unit from any building. there you go with the possibilities Most of the balance discussions focus on taking the most of an already existent content and make it enjoyable without pretend too much ( which is kinda easy to do as long as the game is not finished ) from devs that perhaps have to deal already with not content relative stuff. Knowing how players approach to the game is also a good inspiration for new possibilities/choices, based ofc to a previously taken way.
    3 points
  4. Ok, thanks for the clarifications. So who is "in charge" that could moderate such a discussion, because it seems obvious to me there is actually a want and need for it. @Itms? I just want to remark that it's a new day indeed, full of new opportunities and there are new people bringing with them new possibilities (a lot of them just get frustrated with the lack of direction/clear tasks/vision). Off course, solving every hiccup in the game, or establishing an updated and feasable design document that everybody agrees on isn't going to happen overnight, but it's high time we as community (players and developers) work towards that. The specifics of this document should be discussed noted and officially pinned somewhere easy to access.The old design documents haven't been followed and are simply too old and obscured. I don't think most of the "new" people are familiar with them. This... I think most people want Optionality/Diversity/Aesthetic Pleasure/Historicity/Logical Gameplay/Intuitive Mechanics/Epicness/Scale/Immersion... Other people just want to play a numbers game: Stats/Counters/Balance/Efficiency. So here is a small/major suggestion for 0AD, another thing that seems obvious to me... "Split" the game in to two modes: Online/competitive (classic RTS): streamlined gameplay with a focus on balance Offline/casual (2017 RTS): focus on a large diversity of options and possibilities, aesthetics, expanded gameplay, buildings, units and beautifications, no limts (even if it seems pointless to the competitive gamers, they should just stick with classic RTS mode) This would literally solve the systemic conflict of interest between competitive and casual players. Both communities need to be appeased, but neither of them can possibly be satisfied with the same game! This needs to be understood by everyone! Conflict of ideas is good for the development of the game as it constantly drives us to look for the best ideas. Conflict of interest however (as we see here between casual and competitive gamers) is highly detrimental to the development. If the two are developed separately from each-other, focussing on the ideal mix of elements for each play-style, development and motivation would increase. Developments in either version can be adapted (or not) at will in the other version. I'd even be so bold as to say it could be done relatively easily (looking at how fast some of the mods are created). You'd just have to choose one of two modes: "Classic RTS", or "Enriched RTS". Classic RTS would play very well on low end computers, while people with high end gaming computers could get a lot more adventurous/epic in how they play 0AD. Oh, and: Definitely agree with this
    3 points
  5. You've just discovered an important point: people have another life than 0ad, so the time they spend on the game is limited. Nice progress! All this part just does not make any sense, and you'd better put back things in their true perspective before saying even less sensible words: - the purpose of the speed change was to ease future changes or mods, and it was a good move (imo same thing should be done for vision). If that would have caused a problem to existing mods (which was not the case), then the forum is here for discussing how to solve it. - balance change? i don't see what's wrong with them. Although i agree some of them are still premature, it doesn't hurt to already have them as the people involved would generally not work on other aspects of the game. - fixing missing brackets? that just mean that you don't understand coding, and it's usually better to not talk about what you don't know. - removing random maps? lol, and we could even push that brillant idea farther, removing all maps to remove all gameplay problems. More seriously, same argument as for balance. people are free to work on what interests them, even if not the most urgent problem of the game. And personnally, i play almost exclusively on random maps! Thus, instead of grumbling against missing core gameplay, you'd better take a good JS tutorial and learn how to program (that's how we've all started), that would be more constructive. But for me, the current weaker point of the game is not so much gameplay, but performance. That's something far from trivial and needs somebody dedicated to it during several months, which nobody does currently. Another weak point of the game is missing animations, and that's also something you could try to learn doing instead of complaining that the game won't be finished before years
    3 points
  6. @shieldwolf23, my friend. What you are asking for is a totally separate game which would require much more time than what it already requires. I am sure that offline players will be more than satisfied with campaigns implementation ( whenever they will come ) because they reproduce historically accurate events with perhaps already built cities in games where hopefully quests will be introduced: build N temples trade X amount of resources in Y minutes build a Wonder before the enemy get TOT population. Which is different from having something like a Tribute resources per house, a totally new talent tree and something that could somehow also affect multiplayer game and that perhaps make no sense atm. But yes, something risk-like with Simulated battle in random generated maps and an economy system oriented to upgrade your army ( maybe civilization has something like that? i never played it ) mode would be also fun. ( still this sounds like a total different game too )
    2 points
  7. As long as single players don't care about balancing, all I can tell you is that a proper diversifying of the civs requires time and testing ( thing that actually lacks in svn ) with no need to add new redundant content with just more exotic actors ( me in first line have been really impressed by Kushite actors and would like to see them in main version [ e.g. i don't know why ptol nubian archers changed skin color from black to white ]) . Probably the first step would be to let technologies occupy the mid row of the production queue panel because pair techs are a couple only ( 1 actually ) in order to give modders more room for more technologies in already existing buildings. Everyone wants more contents. AI simply emulate a human player, thus the rules that apply to single player is a natural consequence of a proper tested working "formula" in online matches. The main concerns about balancing is that monotone strategies kill the fun and totally obscure already existing stuff like palisades, walls and towers that may have a more relevant role in any level of skill. Beyond the fancy effect, having more buildings/units/technologies available during the game would make the games ( intended like diversity between different matches ) more fun and would let not 1, new civ, but 10 already existing civs benefit from it. So, why is there a need to add more fancy stuff if the one already implemented doesn't properly work and that may even have counter-productive effects? Basically most of the already existing civs are just "fancy looking" because they are bound to the phase 3 convenient rush and to the "common for all" build order. There isn't any official mod ( made of fact i started my own balance mod which is already difficult to try online ), just fan mods due the flexibility of the engine. Delenda Est is an interesting mod and, sadly, a huge lose for eye-candy seeker players, but arguing on a flame thread because of a modify decision in an alpha stage game is quite time wasting if not useless because someone should foresee changes, especially if those kind of changes aren't new paper.
    2 points
  8. no, its an archaic site, looks close to a small Roman ampitheater, actually. Spartan buildings committed, I'm not dancing around with computer failure again lol
    2 points
  9. About the proposition of splitting singleplayer/online game style, i see few issues there. I think mods could handle much more efficiently single player desires. - Can the devs keep up 2 games at a time while they seem to struggle with only one ? - If some features are officially implemented in singleplayer but not in multiplayer, it would raise some issues are people would be constantly asking for one or an other feature in singleplayer to be in multiplayer too. Also, it would be quite disrupting for players that decide to go play online after having played offline. I believe that most of online players started by playing offline before.
    2 points
  10. @Sundiata - you nailed it! Personally, I only play single player (not much of an online guy). I believe separating online from offline game is doable, and will hopefully solve game play issues. I find some changes in the main game leans heavily on feedback from online play. Even discussions in the forum reflect such. While the charms of single player cannot be discounted. I daresay most of the downloaders of 0 AD are single player enthusiasts. @av93 & @Hannibal_Barca - I opened up the mercenary camp example as a "decision-making" guide, wherein I proposed constructive discussions between all you hardworking people, with the final decision to be accepted by the majority of the stakeholders. I hope 0 AD's leadership will take this proposal seriously (and I know I'm not the first who suggested this). We are losing valuable manpower because of misunderstandings which, in hindsight, is avoidable.
    2 points
  11. Is not a vague term, either with counters or without counters. I'm not advocating here for one way or another of design. But in this game, sometimes I find different sub-optimal or meaningful choices, that aren't really choices cause there's one better. Of course i'm in favour of asymmetrical design and situational choices (like sea maps) but.. I have written before, clear strategies and choices that let you boom/turtle/rush (and midways). Civs designs that feels different but balanced. Synergies. Maybe I would explain myself better with the mercenary camp example: Ok, we add a neutral mercenaries camps in the middle of the map, between players, a "resource" that should worth taking. Why is worth? · Cause is only a barrack more near the enemy? Cause it's a "free" building that only cost unit time capturing them? It's worth spending time capturing (instead of working) when you can have a safer barracks? · Cause it trains mercenaries? What happen to the civs that doesn't have mercenaries? (are the mercenaries civ bounded, or map bounded?) - Why mercenaries are worth? Cause a cheaper price? Cause are better fighting? Cause (if map bounded) fills unit roles gap that the civ doesn't have (so some mercenaries in some maps are more useful for some civs?)? If mercenary camps are added right now, maybe the mercenary "trait" should be changed a little bit to make them more attractive, cause then with the current stats I think that there's a lot of problem that I write up there that aren't resolved. Sure, mercs are now more viable with the new techs, but a merc camp in the middle of the ground are only useful for seleucids and ptolomies, and add nothing for civs that doesn't have mercs. For example, like Delenda Est, mercenaries could be limited population that doesn't cost space population. But BTW, chaning a small element leads you to balance the thing with the global picture and the general design: -Why spend or not ore in mercs. -> Where I can spend it-> It's ore a plentiful resource or a scarce one -> You can mine it safe or not-> Map design and resources distribution and gathering -Why spend population in mercs -> They can work, They can work better? How perform in battle-> Other military roles -> Differences between soldiers (and between C/s, mercs and champs) -Etc.. But adding mercenaries just like this, I think that doesn't add deep choices. Hope I explained myself and I have give some idea behind the cohesive design gameplay. Sure everyone of them. But if you look the original design, there're a lot of ideas that myself I find random, like adding and adding instead of thinking, like capturing women or horses for corralling. Maybe i'm too influenced by a somewhat competitive and mid ground between Aoe 3 and 2... And finally, I'm' only here to discuss, not to complain. I don't have skills to contribute myself, so work done, it's work appreciated. I have to edit, cause I misclick the post button, and I didn't end it.
    2 points
  12. The problem is that almost everyone has a different vision: some want to introduce counters, others demand mercenary camps, yet others say that this is all unnecessary and foolish. Meanwhile we'd have tons of squabbles over "unit roles", whether it should be set into stone that a swordsman must counter an elephant etc To top it all, any new technology will suddenly have 8 paws on it with each trying to drag it in a different direction. But regardless of all that, I'm sure it could be done
    2 points
  13. Vox Populi - An Introduction This mod tries to address the main "weaknesses" of the current release: it aims to balance "op/up" units, it adjusts technologies and introduces some variety along the way As the name implies (Vox Populi = Voice of the People) , this mod is open to all suggestions of the 0 A.D. community and there is a high chance that if several "known" players agree on a suggestion, it could be added in here. Supported by a moderator and developer, the features of this mod - if found good - stand a great chance at entering the next release, perhaps even more so than some other balance mods. Anyway, I'm sure you all wouldn't like to read 349 paragraphs about why, what, where etc.. so I'll list the changes this mod brings (hopefully to 0 A.D. Alpha 23) NEW - Kushite civilization! (Differences from 22.1_KD) Replaced unfitting heroes with Nastasen and Arakamani Added Ptolemaic Trireme to be trainable - requires Nastasen hero Reduced Village Phase unit selection Righted the mix up of temples, now can separately build both Amun and Apedemak temples. - Amun temple is more expensive but offers unique technologies and a greater garrison number - at a cost. Mercenaries are promotable: made rank 2 and 3 actors for Clubmen -- placeholder, waiting for better others just keep actor but promote Vision Citizen-solider infantry base vision 50. (Maximum: 70) Citizen-Soldier cavalry base vision 55. (Maximum: 75) Champion infantry vision 75. Champion cavalry & Infantry heroes' vision 85. War elephants' vision & Cavalry heroes' vision 90. Elephant heroes' vision 95. All siege 90 vision except the Siege Tower's 100. Healers & Women base vision 25. (Maximum:45) Traders & Worker Elephants base vision 30. (Maximum: 50) Fishing ships base vision 10. (Maximum: 30) Merchant ships base vision 40. (Maximum: 50) Fire ships base vision 40. (Maximum: 50) Biremes and Triremes base vision 80. (Maximum: 90) Quinqueremes vision 100. Run speed adjusted to be reduced by same amount as Walk Speed. Players have long complained that such high vision is unrealistic and that it should be lowered. Attack Ranges & Movement Speed Archer units maximum attack range reduced by 4. Archer units gain +10 attack range per phase, slinger units +6. All units start with only 80% of original movement speed. Town Phase gives +10%, City Phase +14% Citizen Soldiers Cavalry rework Sword, spear and skirmisher cavalry have all been reworked. Based on tests so far: Sword Cavalry > Spear Cavalry > Skirmisher Cavalry > Sword Cavalry Ptolemaic camel units now inflict a 20% attack penalty on all cavalry (including allied) within a 40m range. Spear Cavalry 2s attack rate, attack reworked to suit the new values. Citizen-soldier archers' maximum movement speed increased to 10. NEW - Elite Seleucid Bronze Shield Pikemen now need 250XP to promote to Champion Silver Shield Pikemen Unit loot increases with rank. Elite units' stats improved slightly. Citizen-soldier cavalry capture rate decreased to 1, increase of only 10% hp per rank (instead of 20%). Logically, cavalry should have a lower capture rate than infantry. Champions All cavalry champions' capture attack reduced to 4. Archer champions' attack range decreased by 4. Skirmisher Chariot Champions now have 320HP and +2 pierce attack but require 2 population. Spear Cavalry Champions retain the 1.25x counter vs. other cavalry, likewise the 3 second attack rate. Gauls - Naked Fanatic pierce attack increased by 2. Heroes Carthaginians Hamilcar's 2nd aura: As you all probably have figured by now, Hamilcar is not a "useful" hero (giving only +15% speed compared to the attack bonuses of Marhabal & Hannibal) Thus, a new aura has been created (based on historical facts) which decreases enemy mercenary attack values by 20%. Persians Darius I's movement speed bonus aura increased from 10% to 15%. Romans Scipio's aura range increased from 10 meters to 30. Technologies NEW - Unique technologies for each civilization. (current goal is 1/civilization - incomplete, feel free to suggest) 2 new technologies at the Civic Centre, affecting both movement speed and health respectively. Artillery Instructors: Siege weapons cost 20% less wood This technology now costs: 500 food, 250 stone, 250 metal instead of the original 500 metal. Unlock Spies: All support units may now be bribed, not only traders. Mounts: Unlock village phase cavalry, researchable for 100F 100W 50M at the Corral. Mounts icon changed, now uses a portrait imported from Delenda Est. 2nd redundant tech replaced with an autoresearched one - at the cost of a warning message when using the Structure Tree Domestic animals base train time doubled, added new technology "Husbandry" for -15% train time and moved Stockbreeding to the Town Phase with maintained -25%. Blacksmith features new Specialization technologies Hero armor tech split up into mounted and infantry ones, now supersedes infantry and cavalry armor upgrades respectively. Stoa technology added as fitting the Royal Stoa's functions - Price Control: +15% market barter values. Wall Tower technologies added, first may shoot arrows then bolts. Carthage Colonisation technology (500W 500M) now affects Civic Structures (Civil Centre, Temples, Houses) by reducing their cost instead of -25% build time. Structures NEW - Stables Stables now available for all civs like for the persians currently. Unlock champion units technology moved to fortress as a consequence. All civilizations have received a new animal trainable from the Corral, this new addition is the Chicken, for all civilisations. Ships The Ptolemaic Juggernaut now costs only 5 population instead of the original 8. Siege Siege Towers' maximum arrow limit increased to 15. Some changes by @Grugnas were incorporated. Support Healers now cost 200 food. Trade Trade income was re-balanced based on suggestions by @Nescio Incorporated several features of the Pro Balance Mod (by @user1) https://wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?/topic/22798-pro-balance-modconcept-please-test/ GUI Changes Panels now showing Vox Populi mod name with version. Lobby title says "Multiplayer Lobby (Using Vox Populi) - to avoid players forgetting they are using the mod and joining a vanilla game. Download Here!!! vox_populi_22.1.3.zip lightweight edition (for balance and testing purposes) vox_populi_22.1.2_lightweight.zip Installation Instructions: Extract this zip file into the mods folder. The correct folder depends on your operating system. Windows replace USERNAME with your windows login name. Vista or newer C:\Users\USERNAME\Documents\My Games\0ad\mods\ XP / 2000 C:\Documents and Settings\USERNAME\My Documents\My Games\0ad\mods\ OS X ~/Library/Application\ Support/0ad/mods/ Note: "~" is a shorthand for the current user directory. Linux ~/.local/share/0ad/mods/ Note: "~" is a shorthand for the current user directory. -------------------- Changelog 22.0.1 - base version 22.0.2 - Rabbits fixed, infantry archer champion speed increased to 13 to stay constant with citizen-soldier infantry archers. 22.0.3 - Trade nerf fix, vision rework based on suggestions by @elexis and @Grugnas 22.0.4 - Rabbits removed, cavalry rework, attack range and movement speed rework +++ 22.0.5 - Trade fix (based on suggestions by @Nescio), Skirmisher Champion Chariots rebalanced. 22.0.6 - 2 new CC techs, 2nd cavalry tech fix, new icons, new corral tech, increased training time for domestic animals, ++ 22.0.7 - Specialization technologies, hero armor technology rework, new stoa technology 22.0.8 - Wall Turret rework, new technologies first to unlock arrows then bolts. 22.0.9 - Unit loot increases with rank, cavalry only +10% hp/rank, some minor adjustments to elite bonus and spear champion cavalry. 22.1- Kushites added, seleucid pikemen can promote to champions 22.1.1 - Kushite hero rework, error fixes, reduced Village Phase unit selection 22.1.2 - Kushites: Temple rework and differentiation, mercenary fix 22.1.3 - Unique civ-specific technologies, hero abilities, stables added
    1 point
  14. Other thing many don't have account. The actual industry.
    1 point
  15. Thanks for your interest in the game. 0 A.D. and the pyrogenesis engine is a free & open source project. This means that you can create an entirely new game you envision, see GettingStarted. Furthermore, everyone can use our forums to a plan a new game based on the Pyrogenesis engine here: https://wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?/forum/18-game-modification/ If you do not want to base your new game on the Pyrogenesis engine, then it is not related to the project and should be planned on a project related webpage. You will need a team of developers and artists who share interest in the game you desire and are willing to spend years building it. So either your plan is universally compelling or you have several hundred thousand of dollars to hire that team. If we like your contribution, if it's technically compatible with 0 A.D. and if there isn't any copyright infingement of the art files in your mod, we might use it for 0 A.D. too. Until then we are going to cooperate with people who are capable of creating files that implement features and designing features in a way that fits to the project. Unless you hire us, we are not liable to create a different game for each player on the forums and the lobby that thinks that he knows better.
    1 point
  16. @balduin Yeah, they were known to use poisoned arrows. It could be one of the ranged techs... @Lion.Kanzen The crown on the right looks like the crown sometimes worn by the winged goddess Isis. Golden wings of a vulture. Princesses or Queens could possibly wear it in emulation of the Goddess. Isis in a relief from Meroe: Notice the winged serpent symbol on top. This is one of the symbols on the Egyptian shield-placeholders in Kush. A good use of existing placeholders, it seems
    1 point
  17. all team can commit. But art team is little.
    1 point
  18. Here's a sneak peek of the next faction getting ported over to 0AD: the Gorons. Stay tuned for their full roster of units. It seems I didn't take a peek in that file.
    1 point
  19. @Grugnas - unfortunately, numbers can only get you far, game play wise. I am with @Sundiata - most of the players downloading 0 AD do so wanting to play a single player game (since we still don't have campaigns). I believe that the split into offline & online mode would be similar to this: treat online mode as a simplistic RTS geared to competitive game play, while have the offline mode as historical and realistic as a game can be. Like @Sundiata eloquently said, we want to manage cities, build empires and give rise to mighty civilizations! Taken to the extreme, one day, I hope that the offline mode can be a mix of city management games (albeit simplified), and RTS. But that's in the future, my friends. This discussion, although my pessimistic buddy @Lion.Kanzen would like to believe, is not useless. It only shows how diversified our thoughts are regarding this game. Please, could someone ask the leadership of 0 AD to consider my proposal of gathering like-minded guys, ones who can really help, in at least initiating a discussion of a clear cut design document? any chance please? @niektb, @feneur, @Itms, @elexis, @LordGood
    1 point
  20. I just played the Kushites, overall good work. However, there are a couple of things which could be improved. Errors: The Naptan Temple Guard has the wrong preview picture. It is confusing to see the Ptolemaic guard picture, but African looking units. The sound of the pyramids is just annoying. Should be replaced by some African sound which better fits the atmosphere. The name for the elephants should be African bush elephant. The current name suggests those elephants are imported from Eritrea. @Sundiata What do you think? The sound for the land traders is currently the sound for the Ptolemaic camel traders. Donkeys just don't sound like camels Please change that. Improvments: Nuba should be trained in a separate building. They should be trained from a tribe house or something like that. There are two javelin throwing units which can be trained from the barracks. I think it would be better to have only the Nuba unit, which can throw javelins, and remove the African Bushman. The preferred weapon of the Kushites was the bow. Requiring the mount technology to have Naptan heavy and light cavalry is maybe not a good idea. The problem I run into was, that I did not know what "mounts" are and that it actually refers to the "mount" technology in the blacksmith. I figured that out in the very last phase of the game. The Kushites have one very interesting difference to most other cultures. They made very small and narrow gates. See figure 35 and 36 in this post:The current gates are huge wooden gates. Basically the opposite of what the historic Kushites would have build. The Kushites do not have small walls. However, I think it would be nice to have small and cheap mud brick walls. The mud brick walls should cost a couple of stones and should not be very strong. For inspiration see figure 32 "Cerimonial walls in Musawwarat es Sufra" in this post: One of the most important sources of meat and milk for the Kushites have been/are (modern Dinka): Sanga cattles. Sanga cattles can be found in several pictures: figure 27, figure 49, figure 50 and figure 52 show Sanga cattles. I think it would be nice if the Kushites could breed Sanga cattles. The cost for breeding Sanga cattles should be 300 meat and they should return 400 meat. A technology, which can be develop, should reduce the breeding cost to 200 meat. The cost could be adjusted later if it causes balancing issues. Furthermore, it would be interesting to create a Kushite looking outpost instead of using the standard model. @Sundiata what do you think about that?
    1 point
  21. I'm leaning towards the sanctuary of artemis orthia being the Spartan wonder, but that may be muddied with the theater city-state special building. I'm sure I could separate the two, but I figure I'd be open to suggestions
    1 point
  22. Yes, this trivia on mercenary camps is stressful and unneeded I just brought up the topic to show the different stuff people want
    1 point
  23. @Hannibal_Barca - different visions, yes, but on basic and/or important grounds, I really believe that all of the stakeholders would agree to adopt something that would make things moving forward a little bit clearer. Like, in the context of these discussions, how many people in the core team and the modders - in a group of say 10 hardworking, reliable people that know what they are doing and are talking about, how many would like to adopt mercenary camps? If 8 out of 10 say yes, we do need them, then surely, the remaining 2 would understand that the majority wins and that decision carries in the main game. This does not preclude however, the right of the minority to make their own mods to leave out the mercenary camps. What I'm trying to say is, all you guys who make things possible, could try meet and agree on things so that would be the basis of subsequent changes. With a clearer line for the main game, the modders/ contributors out there could in theory, help out with what needs to be done.
    1 point
  24. Although a UN Security Council resolution can still be vetoed by the Security Council by the permanent members, so extending that analogy, the core team can reverse whatever they have resolved in the first place. Which is either good or bad, depending on what is being talked to. I agree on a lot of points raised by distinguished members here. 0 AD's strength is it's continuing development, but it is also it's greatest weakness, especially if there is no one taking a clear, decisive lead. While we address how community members act and react on how the core team treats them, could we agree that this is the best time to have a focus group, involving active members and modders, and re-evaluate what are the things that the game needs? Preferably a design document that everyone interested on it could focus to achieve? I'm not that active, having a family and a career and juggling between them is rather tedious (as all of you who have both knows), but if we want to push forward, I really hope someone from the Core team could extend the hand and modders take that hand. Let's try to make this work. Maybe invite everyone who is interested and can help. Release official documents that will be the guide for the team working on it. If there exists such document, then make it prominent over all the forums, so that it will not be buried to oblivion.
    1 point
  25. Well, that seems everybody is done crying over this spilled milk. We've got the Base game ready for improvement, and Vox Populi seems to be satisfying the gameplay design of Classical Players. The nagging issue now is "the game is still in Alpha". Not talking about "unfinished" but "still in Alpha". But this time, it sounds too arbitrary to talk about.
    1 point
  26. RotE/Terra Magna, along with most of the Council of Modders projects, and 0 A.D. Empires Extended are primarily just adding civilizations, not dramatically changing gameplay. Everything else is either balance mods or almost total conversion mods like Delenda Est. I have actually seriously considered trying to formally contribute to 0 A.D., even using 0 A.D. Empires Extended as a bit of a test bed to see if I could get food trickle for garrisoned Corrals working, but I have decided that suggesting ideas, providing feedback, and limited modding is all I can justify due to my job search going so poorly.
    1 point
  27. @Sundiata I'm not going to be the moderator of any discussions, I've more or less left the project. I try to help out with the forums, but that's about it. I also doubt that another public discussion would be useful, there's no lack of that as it is. What would be needed would be someone who could both take the lead on design and get support for their ideas. Just having random discussions will just result in more information to go through, but no consensus to act on. Just going on without more defined design is unlikely to provide an enjoyable game, or at least as good a game as would otherwise be possible. But on the other hand, there is no point in having the best idea if you can't convince others (especially the ones who will implement it) to see things the way you do, or at least see that it's worth compromising to get a better end-point. So far there has been no such person, at least not for the last bunch of years. There was quite a lot of design discussion and decisions which were made in the projects early days, but not only have all those people left the project many years ago, a lot of things has happened which has put things in new light (features have been cut due to time constraints or technical limitations, and sometimes been added/added back later, other games have brought new ideas, etc.). So I do see that there might be a need to re-evaluate things. As for wow leaving, leper expressed himself a bit harshly, but at least he's still around and can be talked to. Wow just left and didn't even seem to consider that he might have been wrong/misunderstood things. It might just have been a symptom of him being less than hopeful with the project overall and this just being a catalyst for that. In either case, and while it's certainly worth taking seriously how the team reacts to community contributors, it's hard to take him completely serious as he's done the same thing (though under a different alias) several times before.
    1 point
  28. 1 point
  29. @DarcReaver , did you check out Alpha22 ? Do you look at the trac updates to see the regular changes ? Did you read the project announcements ? A22 brought significant changes. A23 will bring long awaited fixes and novelties. New code or data is contributed every day. More stuff is happening under the hood. Itms said the game design issue was being addressed. The pathfinder, currently priority number 1, is being worked on. Some other devs are working on formation-related design decisions and implementations. Artists are on huge tasks at the moment. The project is moving on. A lot of work has been done and there's still a lot of work to do, and the resources are limited. But it's slowly getting there.
    1 point
  30. For now I'm not worried, Ms aren't solving user problem in their games and the beta of DE. With problem with this Definitive edition is the money. Ms don't want put game in steam and is exclusive to Win10. Their developers don't care ask. AoE4 will fragments their community. (Competitive vs hardcore old style)+casual public. The developers are the same, that ruined Dow series but who make CoH. And probably don't have any advanced. I'm part of forums of Aoe, but AoE series never satisfies my desires, like 0 a.d or RTW. Well portrait of ancient civs isn't easy. by other side developer can't be react in that way. I people come and quit since 2012. some are really missed.
    1 point
  31. My thoughts exactly... It's ever-changing nature is it's greatest strength. I do understand the frustrations shared by a lot of people, and I do actually think that the team isn't putting enough effort in to attracting new content producers and maintaining the current community of active members, or showcasing peoples' work and promotion for the game in general. The same issues also keep popping up incessantly by new players, and not much is done with it outside of the mods: citizen soldier-concept needs a remake: people that work and fight is awesome, but there need to be common labourers, better at economic activities (not only women) destroy needs to be the default over capture counters are impossible to understand for new-comers, and experienced players trip over this as well battalions, formations and armies need to be implemented convincingly overly aggressive AI (there should be two more, equally competent AI's: a reactionary one, and a defensive one) more variety/options in general, like DE Yes, I understand, these things need competent people to work on them. But what is the team doing to attract those people? Don't get me wrong, I know there's a lot of silent heroes coding away: @elexis, @mimo, @fatherbushido, @leper, @Pureon, @bb_, @Imarok, @Itms, @fabio, @implodedok, and many others... Shout out to you all for the amazing work so far. I've really enjoyed watching 0AD evolve and improve over the years. I just think you could use some help seen as the to-do list is still quite considerable, and valuable people like @wowgetoffyourcellphone leaving isn't helping development of new content. I think the true potential of 0AD is often overlooked, and we end up with a game trying to stream-line itself for competitive online game-play, but will feel empty without expanded single player options. Bottom-line, the game can be a lot more than it is now (expanded economy/technologies, modest city-building elements, battalions and armies and improved battle-mechanics, updated and more realistic maps/smoother terrain textures, etc). It's often remarked how much this game looks like AOEII, but the truth is, 0AD has the potential to be much greater than Age of Empires ever was, or ever will be! I'm very confident we can wipe the floor with the upcoming Age of Empires releases! We just need the right people working on the right things... Now really wouldn't be a bad time to set up a "game-plan" for the next release. An expansive, and clear, public discussion on the forums about what absolutely needs to be added/changed in the next release and how to go about it, with more considerations for the recurring issues listed above (and the various "requested features" topics). With active participation from the development team, so that people in the community can feel they're being listened to by the people actually implementing changes. Maybe someone like @feneur could start and moderate this discussion, with the first post keeping track of the agreed upon changes.
    1 point
  32. Yes, 0 A.D. is quite similar to Age of Empires, as are Command & Conquer, Cossacks, Empire Earth, Rise of Nations, and many other games, which is probably unavoidable. Citizen-soldiers, capturable buildings, and territory are rather minor points. There are just two fundamental differences: 0 A.D. is free and open source (and available for many different operating systems) and can thus be adapted, modified, or serve as a basis for future games. 0 A.D. has been in development for years and is unlikely to be finished in the forseeable future. Those looking for an end product might regret the second point; personally I think it's actually the greatest strength that the game is in constant development and will possibly never be finished. 0 A.D. can always be changed, updated, improved, and expanded, unlike commercial games designed for profit, which have to be released at a certain date and won't be changed afterwards. Yes, 0 A.D. is far from perfect, I'm the first to admit that. However, keep in mind it's still an Alpha. Nevertheless, the game is already playable, enjoyable, and modifiable, which is simply great. We should be grateful for everyone who has contributed in the past and for everyone who's currently helping to improve the game. Yes, 0 A.D.'s “Empires Ascendant” default distribution certainly has to be improved. However, different people have different ideas, and in group projects such as this it's often quite hard to find concensus on how to change the status quo. Far more important than the actual content (art, factions, templates, unit statistics, etc.) are the efficiency and performance of the underlying engine and the need for a capable and flexible AI. Everyone who watches https://code.wildfiregames.com/ can see that every day several people work on improving the game. Undoubtedly many persons have left over the years, but others are still contributing, and new people are always welcome. As long as that remains the case, progress is constantly made, and 0 A.D., which already is a great game, can only get better.
    1 point
  33. Is anybody else ready for some Total War style mechanics in 0AD? I know I am... A lockable battalion system keeps popping up as a requested feature. Being able to add any unit you like to a battalion (with different advantages/disadvantages), and then locking that battalion, would make you select the entire battalion upon clicking one unit within that battalion. Being able to add these battalions to lockable armies (which you can compose any way you like) would be an awesome system. This should be done with easy to understand buttons, where you also set formations and stances. This would make managing large armies a lot more pleasant. On the more recent models of MacBook pro, 0AD runs like a doozy. I can play with over a thousand pop, without any serious hiccups. I imagine that in future, with more improvements to the game, this ability to generate so many units will be utilised to create much more epic gameplay.
    1 point
  34. holy crap I didn't know lions could be that chill
    1 point
  35. That's not how things work though. If there is no license you can assume that the thing grants you no rights at all. So add a license, and take care where you get your files from.
    1 point
  36. Personally, I'd also love to see the Nabataeans and especially the South Arabian Sabaeans, with their capital at Marib in modern day Yemen as playable civs. One can only dream The ruins of old Marib, the most powerful city in the southern part of the Arabian peninsula. They built the Great Dam of Ma'rib, considered "one the engineering wonders of the ancient world". The temple of Awwam, also known as Mahram Bilqis, was a center of worship for the South Arabian lunar deity called Almaqah A beautiful example of the ancient South Arabian, or Sabaean script. And another one
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...