Leaderboard

EDIT: trac ticket.

I know I know, it's not gameplay... I'll get those models in the engine next time I promise! Here's an animation in the meantime!

Just FYI, I wouldn't make a full copy of default.cfg, because sometimes the options change from one release to another. It is better to copy only the lines you want to change

I have read various opinions on this topic like 1. Metal and stone usually are placed directly next to the CC. It should be more risky to mine them and therefore they should be placed farther away. I agree, my suggestion actually is to encourage more risky gathering, but still provide the opportunity to gather savely in the base which will be punished by other means. 2. Balancing of food resources like fishing for villagers (is not really possible at the moment due to some citizen gather range / size of fish resource incompatibiltiy I think), fish and berry regeneration (don't actually know why it wasn't implemented - I guess some disagreement on design?) or making hunting more viable and nerf/change fields (also discussed, but again disagreement on design I think). I agree especially with the fields: they shouldn't give an infinite supply (and a reseeding queue really doesn't require that much work like in AoE2 if we allow batch "training" like for units - alternatively we could give the option to reseed automatically as long as there are enough resources). And till this day I really haven't understood why on earth something should grow on a field if you throw some wood on it. As seeds are no resource, I would say fields wouldn't require any costs except for a relatively long build time (perhaps 1.5-2.0 times longer than now) and some shorter reseeding time. This would also encourage hunting in the early game as building a field would be really demanding. I would also like to make field efficiency depend on the ground texture (buff on green and fertile ground and debuff/prohibition on desert, stony, snowy/icy ground). This would make decisions about building placement more interesting. I think Stronghold Crusader did this very well and this was also a reason why this game has been the most popular of the entire Stronghold series. Ok this is a interesting topic, but I won't focus on this further at least for now. 3. I think I once read a ticket about the option to make the amount of resources adjustable in the game setup. E.g. on "low" a tree provides 100 wood, on "medium" 200 wood and on "high" 400 wood. Sadly I couldn't find it again (still need to look at older tickets). If I remember right already some work has been done for it which should be finished and included in the main game because it's a great idea IMO (at least for non-professional / non-ranked games). A bit off-topic, but still affecting resources gathering: 4. Actually same thing as with the fields: why do I need wood to construct some stone buildings??? IMO building costs should be (more) civ-specific, e.g. greeks, persians, seleucids, carthaginians, seleucids, iberians and romans would have a high demand of stone whereas the celtic tribes and perhaps mauryans would use more wood for most of their buildings. The exact costs would actually depend on the current model used for the building. Of course this would need a lot of balancing, but I'm sure this can be done and adds to the uniqueness of the factions and thus leads to a better gameplay experience. Probably stone slabs would need to provide a bit more resources to fit this increased demand. Even more off-topic, but interesting: 5. Make trader garrisoning more viable, see http://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/3428. Actually trading is an extra topic, but I just want to raise some attention for this problem which is quite obvious, but still nobody seems to care about it. 6. "Mod for modders" to add/remove resources easily to/from the game. https://github.com/0ADMods/resource_agnostic I think it may be considered to include this mod into the main game (if it's finished?). Not because we need it but just for better modding support. 7. Starting resources vs. max population display in the game setup: either we should use numbers for both (e.g. resources: "300", population: "200") or descriptions for both (e.g. resources: "medium", population: "high"). Just for consistency. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thinking about point 1, some additional ideas came to my mind. Apart from treasures, we actually have a relatively huge variety of food sources (fish, fields, hunting, berries) and trees (different kinds of trees and also size, e.g. baobab gives more and some "wood bushes" give less). In contrast, you can just mine one kind of generic metal and one kind of generic stone. At least for stone there are also ruins and pyramids and I think it's OK if the stone mines just fit to the current environment as they do now (they somehow represent different kinds of stone). Still it would be nice to give them some specific names like "sandstone" for desert, "marble" on mediterranean maps, and so forth. That's not a big deal actually. Edit: IT SEEMS I CONFUSED SOME PEOPLE WHO THINK I WANT TO INTRODUCE NEW RESOURCES. THIS IS NOT THE CASE. I JUST WANT DIFFERENT SOURCES FOR THE SAME METAL WE USE NOW. Have a look at my mod. Now, the intersting part is about metals. Metals have very different properties (much more variety as stone - if you speak about chemical composition it may be the other way round, but I mean the macro scale). They can be very rare, heavy and noble like gold or quite light, abundant and reactive like aluminium (though it wasn't possible to extract pure aluminium at those days). They can be even poisonous like mercury to a higher or led to a lesser extent. So all in all I think we should somehow represent that variety in-game even if we stick to generic metal as a resource (like we have differerent food sources, but one food re-source). My suggestion is to differentiate between gold, copper and iron sources/ores, at least by giving the existing ores appropriate textures. This would actually be the chance to introduce some advantages and disadvantages of the ores and thus add some strategic depth. My ticket http://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/3635 gives a bit more detailed description of what I think. In a nutshell: you should have to decide if you want to slowly and safely mine iron, which is quite abundant also next to the CC, but quite inefficient OR if you want to expand your territory towards risky places with gold deposits which can give you a strong advantage in metal gathering if you are able to defend your gatherers against attacks and distractions. For existing maps we could either exchange existing metal ores with copper (which should fill the gap in between gold and iron) or leave the generic metal ore as it is and use the new ores only in new scenarios/maps. Extra: there are templates for small metal ores, but I can't remember to have them found once on a map. At least in Atlas you can create them - the textures are not always fitting to the big ores. Is that the reason? So what to do? As historic_bruno said it's best to do a small mineral mod for this. More or less I have only modified templates so far and do not have that deep programming skills. However, I would give it a try. If the whole thing works I would probably need some guy for making textures (new meshes would be even better) because I'm not experienced with this topic either. Thanks for reading, I would be glad to hear some opinions about my points (numbers are roughly priority) It would be also be helpful to collect more links to the tickets refering to one or more of these topics.

I have an idea we are planning the future of 0 A.D but we cant have agree in many aspects. My game consist in play if is possibly other games. Why_ Because we discuss about balance, quit phasing and ever and ever we dont take a best desicions. may be is because not all were play the same games. The rules are the following. Main games RTS and TBS Are allowed : simulation ( city builders and war games) Card games ( strategy) Board games ( video games ) Mobile strategic games.( not puzzle) All need be videogames or famous ( monopoly) First all named their favorite games in order 1 very important and the next less important. From these games we named the features we enjoy and can be nice to 0A.D So... If are a game that you don't even play in the other user list, you must play. Things way we can have at last some experience. Example I never play command and conquer or battle for middle earth ( Lord of rings). I must play with them. Because I'm not understanding some suggestions.

My own background is mostly -AoE and AoK and AoM and AoE 3 -Rise of Nations -Celtic Kings -Warrior Kings -Anno 1404 -Rome Total War The two most interesting ones were Celtic Kings and Warrior Kings, which were huge commercial failures. But by far the most innovative RTS I've seen. Celtic Kings had complex food supply and very big maps, and a very RPG-like unit training and everything. Overall it was a very "out there" RTS that did a lot of stuffs differently and would probably have been super cool with formations, but it didn't have formations; and combat sucked. Warrior Kings also featured complex maintenance, RPG elements, and formations. It probably rocked, but I only ever played the demo. I believe it's the RTS closest to AOE that did formations the best, and it was a dramatic departure from AoE already. Anno obviously featured a pretty great economic aspect. I'd call it too complex, and not city-buildy enough, but there are ideas there. No real need to describe the others.

While I agree this would be an interesting feature to have to an extent, it has the problem of being tremendously slow. This is partly because our LOS code isn't the most elegant, but also because LOS in an RTS is something that is very complicated. I would like walls, mostly, to stop LOS (and arrows), but even that is very complicated. There is a reason if Age of Empires never did it. See above for "Advanced". Your "Simple" advantage might be possible, but it will be slow and difficult. I don't believe Field of View can work in the context of 0 A.D. Units can turn instantly, and there really isn't a point to it. We're not Company of Heroes. Basically all of this would lead to a ton of lag, sadly. Perhaps in the future when computers have gotten faster.

Oh right my bad

I've created task for this By the way, could you please explain why such custom preprocessor is used? According to The OpenGL® Shading Language (1.10.59) spec, all directives are supported by built-in preprocessor (no #include support for to obvious reasons). I've checked Ogre3D ssource, there is no clear explanation here also

You're missing the Athenian Marines.

They need gameplay feature added to make them more than just high health units. Trample. Charging. Game is still in alpha.

I know, and agree with your points. However, just waiting until someone just worked on the texture to throw it out is definitely inefficient. There are also plenty of animals still left on the list, so unless the bear is an especially important there is no need for all of us to work on the same thing.

Note that option is in the [view] section of default.cfg, so you either need to use view.fov or put it into a [view] section. It won't set the fullsreen resolution due to some problems in SDL2 (so the comment is temporarily wrong), see #2845, but it will set the size in windowed mode.

nice I cant release these models or textures, but maybe you could use them for ideas? I'm not sure you can do much with a castle aside from the motte, which I haven't modeled yet. Maybe a smaller stone donjon than the one i have here.

By Zero Empiresof course Now are in game Siege Tower... For example

Hi everyone. Excuse me for not sorting out my profile yet. I'll do it a bit l8tr when I can get back to my PC. It's proving a bit cumbersome for me on my tablet. I'm an old aoe player from down south (South Africa). Back in them ole' days lag over the ocean was quite an ishoe and we formed our own tournaments and ranking system down here. I was a mediocre player at best. Thanks to all those who have started and kept 0ad going you are truly an inspiration to the little people like myself. Zy