Leaderboard

Dear players and contributors, As some of you may know, I have been working on integrating the new pathfinder, designed by Philip (Ykkrosh) some time ago. After months of work, I am proud to announce that the new pathfinder has been included in the SVN version of the game. However, you must not think every problem 0 A.D. encounters has been solved. The new pathfinder is in, but a lot of features are still to be implemented and some new bugs have necessarily been introduced. What is the new pathfinder? The new pathfinder is actually a new long-range pathfinder, and the short-range pathfinder has been modified and tweaked a bit to adapt it to the changes. The new long-range pathfinder implements an optimization of the A* pathfinding algorithm, known as JPS (some information here). It also comes with an entirely new "hierarchical pathfinder", which doesn't compute any paths but deals with the connectivity between two points on the map. As a consequence, it is now possible for the pathfinder to know when it is useless to try to compute a path, thus improving the performance. Before, the pathfinder computed a lot of paths before understanding that some point was unreachable. Why is not everything fixed with the new pathfinder? The main thing is that the new pathfinder is designed to solve the big problems that the old pathfinder had (for instance the discrepancies between the long-range and the short-range pathfinder, the fact that the AI couldn't access the pathfinding code, and also performance). However, not all its features have been implemented. There is still a lot of things to do, but now that the new pathfinder is in, this work can be done. On top of that, things that used to work, like formations, are not properly supported yet by the new pathfinder and are currently disabled. A lot of bugs that were fixed in the old implementation are likely to reappear in this new one. What is still to be done? - Already almost ready, but still not in: Improve the grid update performance - Coming soon: Reenable formations JPS cache Remove the AI pathfinder Discover and fix unit motion bugs introduced by the pathfinder change - For the future: A lot of things that are now possible! What else can I learn about the new pathfinder? A PDF, written by Philip and currently being updated by me when I have time, is here. You can also take a look at Philip's progress reports he wrote when working on this new pathfinder here. What can I do? You can help us by testing the game and giving some feedback! Please open Trac tickets only when you are 200% sure it is not already reported (see the list of open problems here), else post in the forums and we will do our possible to file the issue and try to fix it. We would like to have a not-too-buggy A19 despite including this huge change, which is not a simple objective. Please help us!

If I finish up my other games or get to a point where I can work on all three at a decent pace I'll probably come back.

I’m writing after reading a post in /r/truegaming about RTS : http://www.reddit.com/r/truegaming/comments/3961xs/what_happened_to_rts_games/ This will mostly be an “idea rambling” that I post here so that I can have a written trace somewhere but I do have some key points to make. I don't really expect a discussion though I'd gladly take part in one. The reddit thread discusses the reasons why we haven’t seen any new “true RTS” in the vein of e.g. AoE2 in the last circa 10 years. Except for the last, all the big reasons have been stuff we have already stumbled upon when discussing the future of 0 A.D.: It is very difficult to get an RTS rightAn average RTS is not “OK”, it’s actually “bad”, which means you must get it rightThe RTS community was actually divided between those that enjoyed the micromanagement, strategy and pressure (aka starcraft players), and those that relished more the overall macromanagement and/or basebuilding (those play Total War, city builders, Anno)MOBAs took the remaining RTS playersThe obvious problem here is that it is simply very difficult to make a good RTS that will strike the right chords for both the starcraft and the TW players. This requires having competitive MP and fun SP. Something that AoE2 had, and that for example AoE 3 failed (arguably SP simply wasn’t fun enough. Campaigns were subpar for the standards and the AI was bad). My main addition to these points would be that indeed the TW/citybuilder crowd would mostly play SP/casual MP, whereas the starcraft crowd took over actual MP and made it competitive. So basically unless you had a few friends to play in LAN, playing MP means bowing to the starcraft crowd in a classic RTS. I do believe 0 A.D. is on the good path to strike those two chords fine. We have a solid MP game, which can get fairly competitive (adjustments pending). SP is still very subpar, but the AI had gotten considerably better to the point that it might be time to start thinking outside the box a bit. Campaigns with triggers are now a possibility, and I have no doubt we’ll get interesting ones. Now, the problem is that none of this is really new. This isn’t a huge issue because we don’t really have concurrence, but still. The big thing that people want/wanted 0 A.D. to have is realistic ship movements and realistic formations combat. My personal opinion is that neither is achievable/really desirable given the current format. So the question stands: how can you keep the classic RTS formula yet still bring new stuff? Well, I do believe we have all the ingredients, except for one: map size. Imagine for a minute absolutely no gameplay changes to 0 A.D., but all maps are at least 20 times as big as a huge map right now; Suddenly unit travel time is no longer irrelevant. Suddenly attrition can be simulated in a way that makes sense. Suddenly strategic economic position becomes a real thing. Suddenly the base building aspect can become as important as the fighting. Suddenly trading makes sense, suddenly raiding becomes closer to the real thing. Ambushes matter. Territory control matters. And all units suddenly get more realistic. Now this would probably require some changes. The number of different resources might need to be bumped up a bit (perhaps with “raw/manufactured” variants of each material?). The “global stockpile” principle might need some adjustments, but I don’t think you’d need to go full Anno (perhaps with dropsites having “range” and some possibility for trading to move resources internally). Resources would be less accessible on the map, more scattered, so terrain control and scouting would become more important. Strategic positioning of your buildings would probably become much more important (note that this fits well with a system where buildings would be costlier, and possibly need individual upgrades) . One could probably introduce a “maintenance” cost but it’s not certain that this is a necessity. This means much slower games, more on the scale of EU3 or RTW. You’d start with a very simple base, discover your surroundings, and develop slowly into a full scale civ with multiple bases/towns, while still trying to crush your opponent. Rushing would basically be ruled out, but you probably still would be able to strike at vastly different times depending on your focus. An hour attack or a 8th hour attack would become the new strategy. Clickfest is almost automatically out. Yet it doesn't get boring because things would always be happening as you could vastly increase the number of actions before you have a complete city. As for combat, this would make formations finally relevant because the scales would be right, and for the rest you could keep current simplifications. I think this could be a very, very enticing game if done right. The fun of building a base and the fun of classic RTS warfare. It would shift the focus from “basically all military” to “50/50” and that would imo be a very good thing. As a final word of conclusion, I am not suggesting this is the direction 0 A.D. should take, if only because it would be quite a dramatic departure and I am about 100% sure that we could never make it work (it’d be forever too slow with the current engine). I'm saying if someone ever wants to restart an RTS from scratch, this is the way to go.

I think the game is already quite universal and you are going to overcomplicate it with two modes. Currently MP is indeed mostly about micromanagement and competition but the reason is not that competitive people 'took over' it; just citybuilder people face two technical issues: lag on bigger maps no possibility to save an mp gameAfaiu these issues will be solved in the near future and i believe that after this MP will become diverse in a natural way (those who prefer quick fun won't join 2-players games on giant maps, and vice versa).

Hello guys! I'm opening this topic to give a better vision of my suggestions, to the 0ad community, and to discuss them the most we can, if some of you'd like to. To people who would redirect me in the suggestions thread, be aware that i've already posted some post there, but, considering the amount of suggestions i have, and the mass of suggestions arriving almost everyday on the official suggestion thread, creating a special one looked more interesting to me. Some ameliorations to improve the game : About settings and tools: 1) Creating a tool which point an area on the mini map I heard that next alpha won't allow you to see your ally's view as long as you won't take an age 2 technology, also without a pointing tool, this feature looks weird to me. It would be usefull to show where are the opponents, where opponents are building their Civic Center, etc... 2)Random teams : as a setting, to select before starting a match, as for pop cap or cheats. This random team choice is implemented in Age Of Empire 3. It allows to have teams made randomly, whatever players' skill is. This stuff is usefull when you don't know the skill of the players in your room, or when you don't know how to make team at all, whatever the reason is. I guess an interesting stuff to add to this setting, is selecting the number of team you want, and the number of players in each team. Also, you can have 2v2v2, or 3v1, or 2v2, or 2v4, made totally randomly. Also, each player would choose his civilisation and his « colour » (by the place he has in the room), and the teams would only be clear (for the players) at the beginning of the game, or during the map is loading, by adding a kind of « these are the random teams guys ! Enjoy ! », to the loading map page. 3)Handicap : as a setting, to select before starting a match, as for pop cap or cheats. This handicap setting would consist in increasing or decreasing different « gaming rates » of a player. These « gaming rate » might be all important rate, as unit production time, gathering rate, etc... For example, A plays vs B. A has an handicap of -50%. B has 0% handicap. Also, A will gather ressources 50% slower than B, etc etc... This handicap setting would allow all players to play together, whatever their skill is. This handicap would also balance games. After discussing this Handicap settings with some players, the remark that giving more starting ressources to a player could also be a way to balance the game. However, whatever these starting ressources are, a good player will be able to have a better eco, more army (or whatever you want) after some time, so it wouldn't necessarly be a good solution. Also, handicap setting might be an interesting stuff. 4) Patrol button : a button placed near other functionnal buttons, as « delete » or « garisonning ». This button would first be usefull to keep a territory under control, and also being usefull to keep units kinda protected. Indeed, instead of placing your army on a position, it is better to give it the order to patrol from a point A, really close to a point B. Thanks to this, units patrolling wont be attracted, or attack opponent unit they can see. At the moment, by posting units on a position, they'll attack opponents they see, and because of this, you can loose some units for nothing. This patrol button would be an interesting stuff, IMO. About technologies: 5)Create a technology to be able to put your units in formation. As many alpha 17 players regret the fact that formations are back, and dont use them, it might be interesting to have a technology that you can take at your barrack at the first phaze, to be able to put your units in formations. This technology would be accompanied with a formation bonus, to legitimate the resources investment in this technology. This technology might be called « military discipline » 6)Create a first phaze technology for wooden towers, which increases their range (same technology as for 2n phaze defense tower). This would reduce the overpowerness of archers who are almost unbeatable at the first phaze, considering they outrange every units/every buildings. 7) Create a technology for fortresses, which would increase their range. IMO, fortresses should shoot further than towers, but for now, towers shoot further... Is this intended? If yes, why ? About trade: 8) Trade efficiency I heard from some 0ad players that at a certain point( trade lenght+tech), traders are more efficient than units directly gathering resources on the different spots, what i checked myself, and saw this is true. Is this intended ? If yes, why ? Also, my suggestion is reduce trade efficiency 9) Being able to create a trade road In the rare games i use trading, i'd like to be able to create a road trade. Also, IMO, being able to click some points of the /minimapmap that your traders will join , between the 2 markets/docks, might be interesting, more especially to avoid your traders to pass in an area where your opponent is. If this already exist, can somebody tell me how to use this feature? 10) Different map shapes Considering that at the moment, trading is more efficient than direct ressources gathering, IMO it might be interesting to have different map shapes. I'm more especially thinking about square and rectangle shapes. Indeed, with the circle current map shape, the longer trade you can have is a diameter, so it can be difficult to have the territory needed. With square or rectangle map shapes, it would be easier to have a big trade road. Also, destroying your opponent trade line would be more strategic, considering it could be hidden behind his base. I already know there are some maps of that kind, but i would enjoy to see more I won't adress here game balancing ideas, would be really too² long. Thanks for reading T_

I like option between modes 'Arcade' (more like Starcraft and AOE2; faster, more micro, fewer techs with bigger effects, basic formations for movement only, not combat, etc.) and maybe call the other option 'Imperial' (more like Total War or BfME2; more macro, more techs about tweaking your army and civ just right, units fight in formations, more about city building, more realistic). Both modes can have different ladders. Would be a challenge to excel at both.

I didnt told that i dont use formations, on the contrary, i use them everytime, switching from one to another, etc... I didnt played alpha 17 at all, and this formation lack is one of the reason. This proposition mainly birth in my head when i saw many people who regretted the a17 no formation. Also it might be a good compromise between "pro-formation", and "anti-formation", moreover About wooden tower range technology, i understand your argument, but, after age 1, wooden towers arent used anymore because too weak and doesnt worth the investment, compare to stone towers. Of course, nerfing archers might be the solution, but i guess that the balance totally change in alpha19, mainly because of capture and alpha 18 feedbacks. Instead of having an first phase overpowered unit in alpha 19, i would prefer a technology like this. Or switching stone tower range technology from phase 2 to 1 might also be a deal IMO.

The wiki is open for everyone. So if you can document it (perhaps with a link to an example), that would be great. As I have never tested this feature, and the public mod has no examples of it, I find it hard to add documentation.

Just so you know, this one is going to be next to completely impossible to tile thanks to that big fat black cloud up there I still need to separate the three slides, but I think this one will be fun