Leaderboard

Hey guys! Name's Cece, I'm italian. I'm just a random guy who just found out about this game and yeah, I want to play this 'cause it looks amazing. Just wanted to say hi to this community! ♥

Resources (like today money) have no direct value on their own. The values are defined in each individuals mind. Resources have an indirect value in a society in which most individuals share about the same set of values (especially resources/money) so one can give things that have a direct value an indirect value (e.g the price). In a game of warfare like 0 A.D. the highest direct value is the capability to fight. Resources don't grant that but can be used to get it. So it's like: Gather resources (generate indirect value), train/build/research (convert indirect to direct value specifically the strength to fight). Resources are mainly that successful in human history because many direct value items are not likely to last long (especially food). So it does only make sense to generate overproduction to a limited extent. After that (to generate further safety of supply) other longer lasting items have to be considered (that's where resources for later production and money come into play). In short: Having many resources in a real-time strategy is bad because they don't have any direct value on their own - it's only a potential one. So using your resources in the most efficient way and ASAP is the winning "strategy" - not saving them. And I have to strongly disagree that this mindset comes from Starcraft. IMO it's very sad and the other way around in the present days: - PPL have widely lost their self-confidence/sense for own values and fuse into society with the given "values" - "Value" and "price" got nearly indistinguishable by that - That way "value" can be generated by simply adding new "values" to the mindset - without the originally needed individual and direct value - The "health" of an economy is now (more or less) defined by it's over all net worth and it's rate of growth (though actually no real value has to be produced for that "growth") (That doesn't mean that no actual "values" can be added to an economy these days - but it's not needed to increase the net worth of an economy - and that's quite sad, misleading and can be - and IMO is - misused) - On the other hand things that are actually valued alot by many PPL (like e.g. the access to knowledge like in Wikipedia) add very little (if anything at all) to the net worth of an economy (and so is vastly underestimated by economically oriented PPL) In Short: In realtime strategy games the relationship between resources (prize) and strength to fight (value) is roughly conserved (though in a very simplified way). It's our everyday life in an economically oriented society that obfuscates the relation. It's like changing an inequation to an equation: The outcome is simply wrong Edit.: And by the way, I agree with your repeat production queue idea!

Technology Technology should be risky. Currently 0 A.D. alike to Age of Empires, do not emphasize on the technology factor of the game, rather it feels like something that contributes to a racing game feel. I suggest creating a bigger impact on the game play by increasing the price of resources to buy technology. The current 0 A.D. game allows the player to create a certain mental pattern of what technology to buy next to race to the later game phase. Technology in the game feels like an unconscious role that does not impact the player's decisions. If the game increases the price of technology to an expensive amount, the player has to think about what technology would impact them in the entire game. Technology should be a risk factor that players have to consider ahead of in game. For example, would buying a wood gathering technology be more efficient than a metal gathering technology depending if my opponent is going to field either professional spear or cavalry units later in the game? Should I spend my resources purchasing the majority of the equipment for my troops or should I focus on bettering one kind of unit? Technology should be expensive so that players buy depending on the situation. It slows down the players to consider the game to a situational strategic thinking play style rather than a race against time to buy everything essential to play against your opponent. If technology is expensive, the one pattern technology mentality would be ineffective and allow the players whom consider how their opponent plays to be able to purchase technology needed to counter. Buildings Technology existence should rely on the buildings they were purchased from. If I destroy my opponent's armoury, he should not be able to purchase units with benefits of the technology purchased from the armoury. I dislike how useless buildings become after purchasing all of the technology that come from them. It doesn't make sense if military units get effective equipment if they do not have an armoury to get that equipment from. It would be another interesting game play feature if you can handicap your opponent by destroying the buildings essential to providing technology. If I could downgrade my opponents newly created spearmen by destroying the fortress that gives the civilian soldier bonus, I could then use my heavily upgraded cavalry to kill off my opponent. By the threat of losing technology if the specific technology building is destroyed, players would have to develop a more defensive play style to prevent such a situation. Formations Formations aren't incredibly developed in 0 A.D. currently, but they should be something to consider as a tactical approach to prevent and create counters. Currently 0 A.D. focuses on counters for units individually rather than for a whole formation, and formations seem to only affect the units with small stat changes. Formations and how they are used should be what is a deciding factor to hard counters. For example, if I field an army of archers against my opponent's hastati, my opponent would then enable the testudo which would then benefit his hastati to become immune to slingers and archers. Then if I use my cavalry to use a flying wedge formation, they would charge into the hastati testudo and break them out of formation to become exposed to projectile fire. With hard countering formations, a unit total minimum should be required to create that formation; therefore, the player may have to consider creating a large amount of units to get the benefits of the formation. Formations would make battles and sieges require more control from a player rather than a mass of fodder units enveloping themselves into a chaos that tends to favor ranged units (why ranged and mobile units are more favored than infantry units in Age of Empires 1&2). Formations and hard benefits to using them would hopefully help the players who prefer using large massed armies over the players that win by controlling widespread groups of few units each and use guerilla warfare to win the game.

Otro hispanohablante por aquí. Desde Sevilla, España, un saludo a tod@s.

IMO the cost of technologies has to be balanced against the cost of units and buildings. If technologies are to expensive and/or take to long games will lean towards "reach the unit cap ASAP and overrun the enemy". (Instead of upgrading to City Phase you could alternatively build 40 skirmishers for example) The cost of upgrading everything should cost about as much as building 2x unit cap cheap combat units (as a rough guideline so about 2*250*100 ~= 50000 resources) The main thing driving research is the satisfaction of basic needs so Food should be the resource needed most in the research tree. (That's why the neolithic revolution had such a big impact on social and technological development)

In deathmatch mode you'd be better off building a few extra barracks and spreading the queue across them.

Haha, sorry Lion. I will in the future post my guesses of the Classical Era and present my research, but it currently lacks some strong clear support and I need to find the articles that I read to support it. I will say that it mostly has to do with how bronze were used back then and an estimate of how available the alloy was, whether iron equipment were used more in the classical era, and to argue against about whether certain groups of people were deprived of proper protective equipment. As you say, each person has their own view of the hellenistic timeperiod and I should shut myself up. Lol

I prefer soft counters,moony have sense use cavalry against a Macedonian Pikeman even Cataphracts can be killed by them.

Oh yeah, high risk and high reward sounds like a nice idea. For technology being tied to buildings- I was thinking that if the player loss the building, the player would be temporarily be denied of the technology purchased. If the structure tied to the technology purchased was rebuilt, the player would regain that technology. I was also considering an idea where the more duplicates of a structure built, the less expensive the price of a technology tied to those specific buildings are to purchase.

It wasn't that fine, in my opinion the unit set back then didn't make a lot of sense. Honestly all players did back then was just spam a single unit type and a-move with that. Unit interaction was a bit stale. I didn't really see how unit interaction back then was a brilliant design. It was so incredibly counter-intuitive that literally the only counter I remember is Cavalry skirmishers were supposed to be countered by Spear Infantry and Elephants. That made little to no sense and I don't think that a lot of the other counters did either. Changing the unit set so as to get rid of multipliers is something that's been in the works for a while, I asked about it maybe a year ago. It's not something without reason either. Units are being given actual roles now and the changes that Sycthe is making make sense to me.

There is a small interruption in our lobby server today, on no day other than friday the 13th! I can assure you it has nothing to do with bad luck though. In the past month we've been migrating Wildfire Games services (the website, forums, the autobuilder, irc bot) to a brand new server. Because we've been suffering from a lot of downtime lately, due to all kinds of different issues, we've decided to move all services to one central, reliable place. Today we've moved the lobby service to the new server as well. So presumably this will be last downtime for a long time (*knock wood*) for the multiplayer lobby. :-) The lobby is currently working without issues on the new server, however the DNS for lobby.wildfiregames.com may not have updated everywhere yet with the new IP address. If the lobby server isn't working for you at the moment, please be patient; it should start working again within 24 hours at most.

Hey guys, I just reached 500 views on my channel, I know it's not much but it makes me quite happy to be honest ^^. It motivates me to continue seriously my videos. As I said earlier, I plan to make various types of videos from now: - Focus on map, play on special map like Naval - Some multiplayer games 1v1 and 2v2 - A Random game : I play on a random map with random civ against random very hard AI and just let the viewers enjoy this amazing game. If you have any suggestions/idea/proposal of the kind of video you would like me to make please tell me here, I'll start a list. Alex PS: I don't know how to code/program so I can't contribute with the development of the game but if I can help players with my videos I'll do my best

Sea warfare is primitive yet, is enogh developed. A bunch of archer can defeat easy a big ship. The ships working light a siege tower, add units increases arrows to the ship. Is the only thing I know about them.

It's ok, I just want to encourage you to think one extra time before posting

Yup, just checked and it's actually building at this very moment So should be very updated really soon That wasn't what he was asking. He asked about the development PPA, not the release one. It's really nice of you to want to help out, but if you are not certain it's better that you don't reply as there is a risk that your reply will just confuse people instead of help them.