Leaderboard

Taking the time to commit things counts as actual work too.

First attempt:

What's the right way of doing it

Well, im impressed how fast was to update the textures, didn't even took me 10 mins to update them.

5 Shapes, this one is pelta_thrac_02: Haven't started to modify player color.

New concept art: walls city and towers

Anyone who has played in multiplayer will have noticed, the battles become skirmishes where the proyectile infantery is the protagonist. The objective of 0 A.D. Empires Ascendant is being true to history without losing in the gameplay, something they have not achieved. Im not publishing this just to complain, ido it to contribute to the improvement of the gameplay. During the game its impossible for the novice player to be able to build a balanced army, as would happen other games of the same genre, to do this will be exterminated by an endless rain of enemy proyectiles. I have been playing RTS for many years and i think that the game experience is better when we can build an army that we not only like but also actually works in multiplayer. Thats why i made this post, to help in the gaming experience. I believe the battles are more enjoyed when they last longer, when more melee infantery is used than that of proyectiles. I wont the battles to last longer, to use more melee infantery than that of proyectiles.

I'm from Ukraine

Hmm, I could see this kind of thing being better represented in the hero bonuses or auras (say, the Alexander hero might give an extra buff against Persian units for obvious historical reasons). I don't think civ specific buffs or penalties are "cheap" per se, but they need to be thought about more and a blanket one like the one in OP is probably not the way to go. Better to give it to a specific type or unit or hero or something, not the whole civ. (Everyone might be tired of me referencing Delenda Est, but here it goes), in Delenda Est, Spartiate champions get an extra bonus vs. non-Greek civs, while the Theban Sacred Band get an extra bonus vs. Greek civs. It's specific to a unit type and not a civ-wide bonus. To be honest, I might remove these bonuses, but they aren't without some kind of thought and they aren't blanket bonuses.

So, in Delenda Est, trees have no obstruction. Units (C) can walk through them. This may help with pathfinding computations (have not tested thoroughly, just anecdotal). Straggler Trees (A) can be built over and removed by structures (D). This removes the tree* and allows the player more base building freedom and removes some minor frustration with not having enough room for the player's base and walls. Forest Groves (B) have 5000 wood (comparable to a 5000 stone or metal mine), and cannot be built over. Units can still walk through them, but the Groves have an "Underbrush" aura that reduces speed, vision range, and missile range within the grove**. Regarding Renewable wood, the Groves could have the renewable feature, where they slowly regain their wood resource if left alone. While the straggler trees wouldn't do this. The Groves are an abstract, they represent a whole grove of trees and ecosphere, so their replenishment makes sense. A single tree just represents a single tree, so would make less sense to renew. * Need an extension that colors the tree Red when the structure preview is waved over it to tell the player the tree will be destroyed. ** We could extend the Grove feature further by allowing certain units or civs the ability to "garrison" in them and simulate an ambush feature. These ambush units would be ungarrisoned if the Grove reaches 50% or less wood. They'd be ungarrisonable if they were in the process of being chopped by an enemy unit.

It depends on the aura. By default they affect only their own, but there are several exceptions which affect allies or enemies instead. You can do a `grep -ir affectedplayers` inside simulation/data/auras/ to find those files. And modification do stack. +20% and +15% is 1.2×1.15=1.38, i.e. +38%, not +35%. It's called multiplication (like compound interest).

You can build any structures over (individual) trees. So, what this solves is that random trees don't screw up your base layout and prevent you from building a nice circuit of walls. The exception to this is Forest Groves, which you cannot build through (and which would make a great candidate for the renewable resource feature).

Delenda Est has (mostly) fixed this.

The game needs more of this: And less of this:

If you wanted, I could make a separate mod for balancing, based on DE's balance.

. Indeed, the upper two refs are medieval, the third one is Continental Celts and the last one is a reconstruction of an Irish ringfort from c. 500 AD. Not ideal refs

For now: Can work with the actual SVN Since this don't require the animations. Just the main mesh with the prop bones.

@Alexandermb: Here it is. If you need something, just ask. Red files are the missing ones, green files are the ones who reference the missing ones. art/variants/biped/formations/syntagma_mid.xml <- art/actors/units/macedonians/infantry_pikeman_a.xml art/actors/units/macedonians/infantry_pikeman_b.xml art/animation/biped/rider/camelry/promotion.dae <- art/variants/biped/rider/camelry/promotion.xml art/animation/biped/rider/camerly/archer_attack_right.dae <- art/variants/biped/rider/camelry/attack_ranged_archer_right.xml art/animation/biped/infantry/siege_operators/gastraphetes_attack.dae <- art/variants/biped/attack_ranged_gastraphetes_fire.xml art/animation/biped/rider/camelry/archer_attack_hip.dae <- art/variants/biped/rider/camelry/attack_ranged_archer_hip.xml art/animation/biped/infantry/spearman/attack_melee_hop_a.dae <- art/variants/biped/attack_melee_hoplite.xml art/animation/biped/rider/camelry/attack_slaughter.dae <- art/variants/biped/rider/camelry/attack_slaughter.xml

El torreon probablemente lleve como prop (adorno) unnescudo o un banner. Tambien se le puede poner color player en la parte donde esta el vigía. Ka puerta debe ser estandar asi que es el doble y un poco más de esa.

Bonuses are currently applied thusly: [base] * [proportional bonus] + [absolute bonus] Both +20% and +15% are proportional bonuses, so (at the point where a unit enters the overlap in the radius' of both auras, and assuming no other auras in effect) they are multiplied together to get a total +38% bonus, which is then cached. The caching allows the final calculation to be as above - which is relatively quick to calculate - rather than having to iterate through every aura active on the map, determine if they're in range, whether they should apply, etc... all several times a second. When a unit moves out of the radius of one of the auras, the cached proportional bonus is divided by the proportional bonus of the aura no longer in effect, and the result replaces the old cached value. Absolute bonuses work similarly, except they are added to (and subtracted from) one another, with the result cached: only recalculated when a unit passes in or out of another applicable aura. You might use an absolute bonus to add a given bonus regardless of the base stat (e.g. +5 resource carry capacity).

@s0600204 gave you a correct answer and he is a dev as you can see by the little badge. Nescio's answer is also correct. So I don't know what answer you expect but I don't think we can do much better than that unfortunately.

@wowgetoffyourcellphone I like the way your implementation work. In my opinion, this belongs into the main game. I also think the forest groves would improve the path finding performance. Especially, on maps with a lot of forest. Maybe one could even implement, that a group of forest groves becomes a "Large Forest", but you would still harvest only from forest groves. Meaning, only if you chop half of the forest grove, you can not hide units in the forest groves. However, you can still hide units in the "Large Forest". A "Large Forest" would mostly be a large obstacle in the eyes of the path finding algorithm. Therefore, it should be easier to run the algorithm. In any case, the Forest Groves make it easy to implement wood as a renewable resource, hide units and potentially improve the performance of the path finding algorithm. I would like to see those implemented in the main game.

I wonder if we could the camouflage thing from #3177 by using @Mate-86's status effects on the visibility component.

As long as you are not trolling, and being somewhat constructive it's all good

That one is straightforward (one template entry and one check in Health). Do you need it?

I just did this for the Suebi in DE. They have a militia clubman, who slowly loses health, but trains very fast. Now, if only we could have a feature to where they'd only lose health down to a certain percentage like AOE3's militia.

@wowgetoffyourcellphone that is a good solution. In my opinion, this should be implemented in the main game.

@abc1 Please don't call us clowns because your question was addressed by a Programmer through me. He believes that your example added to about 38% and not 35%.

As for the ambiguous cases, we can first compare Vercingetorix and Hannibal auras, respectively : -+20% attack and +1 capture for soldiers and siege engines. -+20% attack and +1 capture for nearby allied soldiers and siege engines. When we see them together we can obviously tell the difference, but for 0AD players that see them at different time, they could assume it do be the same, it would also make sense in term of balance. But indeed we have : "affectedPlayers": ["Ally"], in the code for Hannibal and not for Vercingetorix. But that's not all, Cleopatra's tooltip has : "+10% health for allied heroes." which is written the same way as Hannibal's but in the code it has : "affectedPlayers": ["ExclusiveMutualAlly"], which kind of hints to a difference we don't really know of. And on top of that it's unclear if in the bonuses to allies also affect you, which is not the case for teambonuses. I don't mind, but i'm almost sure you still don't know the answer.

Yeah, true, although for those cases it's specified in the tooltips. I got focused on the attack bonuses which i remembered didn't stack with others (after veerifying, some do, other not). In the end, even the cleopatra bonus can only stack with itself, right ? Worry not, i looked into the codes. I found a very ambiguous case. And still, it doesn't necessarily stay at the highest, it would only stay to the bonus that affects you, and if it combines, it doesn't necessarily combine to 35%.

If you guys really want to push the visuals further for metals without having to re-create every texture and having to bake from highpoly, you should actually implement this: This is how reflections were faked before PBR in games (and it is still used). IIRC the reason not to implement it was due to "reflections not being accurate enough" which is a bit presumptuous since this technique is actually for faking them. Making the reflected environment texture very generic and quite desaturated will work perfectly for all kinds of metals. And if you want to go even further, wraitii mentioned that the reflections could be affected by fresnel, which is basically all you need to fake the reflections in both dielectric(non-metal) and metal materials. (you could do subtle reflections on marble, vases, rooftiles, whatever) In top of that, the performance hit is very low. Here's how stuff can look with this technique: If any artist want more information this tehcnique, is a nice in-depth tutorial of faking such reflections witha more complex setup on a non-PBR renderer (despite the title) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jb_Xf4SWljs Cheers!

0 a.d. have their first policemen Roman Policemen. Cant gather resources; Cant promote; Can building; Cost only 60 food and 3secs training time; Trained in cc; Limit of 6 units; Less hack armor than others spearmen; Have aura +5% gather rate for units near, range 12 or 15 (any suggestion for aura name?).

I thought those kind of castles (motte and bailey were more 8th century castles) ?

I know, just playin.

@Stan` Perhaps bonuses should just be separately added (rather than multiplied) to avoid confusion and make the arithmetic easier. The order of the bonus wouldn't matter if they were all added to a combined bonus before being applied. [edit] Then again, I usually just ignore the harder to calculate bonuses like diminishing return farms.

Champions Mod 1.2 Towers do more damage. Garrisoning units used to reduce or barely change the amount of damage done in fights because tower damage was only 4.5/s. Towers now do 12 damage/s which is higher than most units would do ungarrisoned. This makes towers a good defence until siege units become available. The city phase is now slightly cheaper and grants +20% unit health instead of +10%. Civic Centres are now cheaper and Military Colonies are slower to build. Civic Centres now garrison 30 units. New Brits tech to decrease the metal cost of Naked Fanatics. New Rome tech to expand territory even further in the city phase. Mauryans' Bamboo Bow tech is weaker but cheaper. It was too strong since it affects Maiden Guard Archers and Elephant Archers too. New Blacksmith tech to increase Infantry Swordsmen armour. The Market dilemma techs Cheap Labour and Cheap Goods are now free (excluding research time). The vision ranges and loot of buildings are more consistent. Improved some tech icons and improved tooltips. Other small changes. When you update to the new version make sure to delete the old version first!

You can also look up answers yourself by opening the appropiate files on your computer or browse the aura files located at https://trac.wildfiregames.com/browser/ps/trunk/binaries/data/mods/public/simulation/data/auras

POOB analysis

I personally find 'slowly losing health' is a weird abstraction. AoE3 does this to simulate the temporary nature of militia. But since we have XP, what about slowly losing XP? Militias train fast but with lower attack and defense, and also decreasing XP over time. So if they constantly fighting they would be promoted to regular soldiers. Otherwise they can keep their low health and useful only for defending or put in garrison. Heck, how about making all citizen soldiers like this too? Not sure about game performance issue or overall gameplay mechanic change though. I'll probably put this in my future mods.

Creeme que sabemos eso. Jajajaja, es muy amenudo esa discución.

That said, Hannibal's bonus to allies don't stack with other possible hannibals :

This guy's laziness is inspirational...

Taking some practice with the weave generator;

I made a wicker texture in Substance Designer some time ago if that can help. I have a few other texture I haven't released, dunno if they could be used I have this wicker texture lying around What are your PC specs ? Maybe it's because the new blender uses a more recent OpenGL version...

Definitely slaves would be a fantastic addition. Another point to consider is that there could be a freeman class as well, having a hybrid role of fighting and gathering resources, but not being particularly good at either. The citizen then could be more like a champion but perhaps providing gathering boosts to other units.

@Stan` I was thinking for a while now of suggesting that we create an atlas unit which we could use for scenarios (Helot revolts and the Roman Servile Wars) where we script some Scenario type maps with large group of armed mobs or angry mobs that would storm the player base. I was thinking of arming them with nothing else but livelihood tools such as farm and mining tools (and maybe some hunting tools? like a simple spear?) This way having them as economic units could still be immersive since they could roam around without holding swords helmets or other warrior panoply.

Why so much fear in experimenting? Make a change and if it doesn't have the desired effect then revert that change or change it some more. I swear the team didn't used to be so tepid when it came to this stuff. Who cares if some people howl at the changes? Listen to those who make constructive suggestions and ignore those who don't. Battering Rams have been OP for 3 years, Bolt Shooters have been UP for years. Siege Towers are just weird. People spam Slingers, when really melee infantry is what they should spam (ranged units should support the melee infantry and cavalry should be for raiding or targeted strikes). Perhaps it's because there hasn't been someone designated to decide these things?