Leaderboard

So ancient, tickets submitted by Cleopatra or Mark Antony.

I'm currently in the process of upgrading my textures to 512x512, as suggested by Enrique. I'm hoping that I can have plenty of free time to work this summer. (GMT +8:00H)

The ones in my screenshots uses object color, an option in the actor editor which allows you to assign a color to the alpha channels. The game uses player_color as a standard, so that you can easily distinguish the ownership of units in the game. In-game player colors are highly saturated to make it very noticing to the players. You can create a mod for personal use that utilizes the object_color option, just like what I do. I assign multiple object color variants just like what I did in the screenshot below Notice that the clothing colors are different? They use object_color variants, while I left the shields as how it was, using player_color so that I can still distinguish which units do I own in the field. I hope this helps.

Before I get confused with all the forks in the discussion, let me just say that I hope you guys don't "over-modernize" this game. Judging from the comments on the recent youtube videos, there are still classic RTS fans out there who just "discovered" 0 A.D. I really hope you find that sweet-spot of preserving the "classic" feel of the game while bringing good innovations.

Right here. They're already in. Enrique commit them on New Years.

If you remember Feudal Wars (and how it failed), the main developer didn't give up trying to make a great RTS. I'll try my best to follow this game... especially the dev logs. It has one entry where he praised 0 A.D.'s artistic realism while stating that it has become detrimental to gameplay (Forum-ception: His article quoted a thread on this forum, and now I'm indirectly quoting him back).

Yo todavía ando con un poco de tiempo libre asi que me sigo entreteniendo un poco con esto y mejore (creo) el escudo, le agregue detalles y le mejore la textura escudo.zip escudo.DAE

@DarcReaver I am also trying to be patient here. Like I mentioned in a previous post. There are different styles of rts. eg AoE2, Warcraft3, BFME2. Each appeals to different section of gamers. You seem to be very fond of Warcraft 3. It is not a good game to draw inspiration from. Yes single units matter more in it because of limited pop space, more hp and less attack. But at the same time the game was limited in strategic options and replayability. Same army composition for a faction every battle. Not much to differentiate by skill in eco management. Being more dependent on micro of hero abilities. As for AoE2. It is an old game. But still had more strategic depth and variety than Warcraft3. And there were many ways by which skilled players got an advantage. If you follow the game at competitive levels you'll see how even one unit matters. This is not true for 0Ad currently. Since the combat system is not balanced. And eco management is a nightmare. Also about formations. I liked the implementation in BFME2. The control over battle was easier, and more logical. But it had removed eco management to compensate. Because training a formation of gatherers doesn't make sense. It had essentially had only one resource. I cant see this happening with 0AD. Since it requires more eco management. While player managed 'flexible' battalions, as was planned for it. Seems perfectly fine here. In early battles in which handful of units are there and in raids, single unit system can be used as is. And later on in game when sizeable military has been built- players can activate formations for special bonuses and to make managing easier. We are on a different page here. While you want to simplify economy and battle. I think that for competitive aspect such simplification is not good. It prevents skill of player to give him advantage. The learning curve of game is very short and shallow. Aoe2 still has a huge dedicated player base, even after so many years. You cant see the same with warcraft and bfme. Because while they were eye candy and simple for new players, there was something missing to keep hardcore gamers interested. So I feel micro should be easier, not eliminated. It seems your main issue with 0AD is because it is based on AoE2 style of rts. And now you want ppl to abandon 0Ad project and start a new game WarcraftAD??? the above covers answer to Q1,2 and 7. Statement 9- There are changes in design included. Removing military from CC. Giving phase progression a meaning. Eco management changes, combat changes. Lot of other changes which would make easier to manage army and gatherers as compared to now. And Citizen soldiers were divided into - Male citizens (from CC) and Soldiers (from barracks). the stat changes were mainly as an example to balance citizen soldiers and champions. Q6- Last attempt to make you see the light. You probably dont have experience with balancing a game, or even optimising build orders for competitive play. Calculating eco efficiency is a major part of it. And you are doing it wrong again. Female citizen gathers food at 0.8. And Citizen Soldier at 0.4 First of all this means if both are used for gathering- female citizen pays for itself much faster. 2nd apart from the citizen soldier being more expensive. 60f 30m vs 50f. the difference in gathering rate means- female citizen gathers 0.4 food more with every second. And the difference in eco keeps piling up with time. The soldier will never provide profit at anytime. If resources are used to produce military, then it would be essential to make them attack to be useful. The soldier being able to fight doesnt matter, until a fight starts. The player going eco heavy can use his accumulated eco advantage to later train more soldiers than the enemy, and those soldiers which were gathering all this time wont seem that much useful anymore. Again you are assuming that there's not much in terms for eco growth options. A player which trains less military than his opponent(who is using them for gathering) will have more resources left which he can use for- Getting more eco upgrades, earlier Phase progression to 2(faster eco unit training), can boom with Fertility festival, invest in corral and traders. While CC will be continuously used to train units. Same is not true for barracks. A player who uses barracks as an eco production building. will fall behind another one who trained only a few soldiers and invested more in economy. And even further behind someone who didnt build barracks and rushed to phase 2. There is no 1 single ultimate build order, but everything is relative to what your opponent is doing. but in the end it remains true- since Male citizens(which gather wood/stone/metal the fastest) are trainable. the units from barracks wont be used as eco units. Also since you can upgrade your male citizens to soldiers at short notice. That double barracks was an example of phase 1 option- While one player can rush with double barracks. another player will use same amount of resources to go to phase 2. I don't understand why you are gathering metal with women. Females gather food- 0.8 . 1.5x on farmland. so 1.2 effectively Male citizen gather metal- 0.66(with aura bonus) Female -6.66 on food ; Male - 6 on metal. Train time for both- 8sec. Requires 96 seconds to train these. Double barracks cost- 300w 300 stone. Phase 2 + single barracks cost- 150w 550 stone. You can see here the double barracks guy is already ahead in eco before even training single soldier. Then once he attacks- all soldiers of both sides are engaged in combat. Defending player might get idled if he garrisons his gatherers. This was an example scenario. It shows that neither defending or attacking will be op. Only timing of attack matters. Skilled players will use Barracks to train units only shortly before they plan to attack. Some soldiers might be kept for defence. Attacking gets an indirect boost because of- More spread out gatherers outside territory. Limited eco unit production means every unit counts. 2X xp gain bonus- which is a huge thing in this design. A bad implementation of the concept. Because currently units trained from CC and Barracks are same. And fighters are essential to train for gathering purposes. The problem with citizen soldiers currently is because while they are expensive than eco unit(female) but also gather faster than them-wood, metal, stone(so eventually can balance out their increased cost). In my proposal their gathering rate is markedly reduced. And another eco unit - Male citizen is introduced which is both cheaper than soldier and gathers faster than them. So soldiers can never hope to match up in eco. This feature suddenly changes all dynamics. I hope I'm clear to you now. Even if not. The changes you propose are drastic(rework all mechanics) and will take longer to implement. It would be easier to try the minimal change approach first. There can be endless discussions about this. In the end we have to agree to disagree. Its better proof after seeing it in action.

I agree. RTS games have moved on from the AOE combat style. I don't want to see "massive" armies of 100 micro-intensive soldiers. I want to see 1000 guys duking it out in battalions -- you call them squads, same diff -- that you manage. Maybe 20 or so battalions of 24 dudes a piece, where the "micro" is used for setting posture, flanking, formation, charging, etc. You know, exciting stuff that actually simulates combat of this era. The thing that makes this era so appealing to player. Any game can have point and click fest micro, but there are better way of giving the player the experience of ancient combat.

Looking great indeed! I'll just avoid the English recording since it will be difficult to translate. For consistency with the existing game I'll suggest to only have the on-screen text, can be easily translated and also changed if needed.

@Hannibal_Barca: Are they really planned for Alpha 23 or is it just some ancient ticket that happens to have it's milestone to Alpha 23?

Hello again, I'm glad to present you the second version of the metagame, where many things have changed. Game: Updated 28-11-2016 IMPORTANT FIX - Marian Reforms Missing MetaGameV2_2.zip Patch: Updated 28-11-2016 IMPORTANT FIX - Marian Reforms Missing MetaGameV2_2.patch Docs: CivBalance.odt Main changes: Creation of category subtypes to improve the strong-weakness system (and make it more diverse) Rush: Strongest in phase 1. Weak in phase 2. Weakest in phase 3. Successors Changes Can't build fortress. Siege only avaible on CC. Champions can only be recruited on Militar Colony. Militar Colony can be built on phase 1. Ptolemies No changes Seleucids Changes Seleucid corrals can recruit militia cavalry. Militia infantry also affected in matter of costs and debuff. Rush-Wall: Stronger in phase 1. Normal in phase 2. Weaker in phase 3. Celts Melonas in age 2. Champions can be only recruited on CC. Start with one unit of the same type you'll use to rush. Britons Dog rush. Kennel in phase 1. Cost 0. New tech Woad Painting. Puts a fear aura over your units that'll lower enemy citizen's attack on sight by 20%. Don't affect champs. Lowered dramatically longsword champions armor. They got slow yet deadly attack rates. Gauls Druid rush. Temples in phase 1. Cost 0. Set fanatics armor to 0. Boosted heath, speed and attack rate. They can't capture buildings, only attack. Wall-Rush: Strong in phase 1. Strongest in phase 2. Weak in phase 3. Carthaginians Wall role. Walls cost 0 and have enormous resistance but they've got the slowest build rate. Removed Carthaginian Embassy. Carthage doesn't got barracks. All mercenary citizens and champion elephants are recruited in markets. New building Tophet. Reduces Sacred Band cost and maximum population by 50% for each Tophet. Persians Wall role. Boost walls with Persian Architecture after you build them. Units now cost food only. Persian storehouses give a slow trickle in all resources. Wall-Eco: Weak in phase 1. Strongest in phase 2. Strong in phase 3. Mauryans Pillar of Ashoka effects are stackable. Iberians Reverential Monument effects are stackable. Rework of the Iberian Maisu Burdina Langileak Tech. For each Blacksmith you control you reduce unit's metal costs of your team by 10%. New building: Foundry. Special armory that has the Iberian Special Techs. Unique building. Eco-Wall: Weaker in phase 1. Normal in phase 2. Stronger in phase 3. Hellenes Civic Stoa, Royal Stoa and Theatron are considered influent buildings, they're visible to all players. No Theatron build limit. Spartans New technology Femine Mystique. Improve all women's economic parameters by 25% but increase cost in 25%. Spartan houses can spawn women without need of the house tech. New building Tall Spikes. Special building for Spartan women. Deals heavy damage to cavalry on contact. New building Small Spikes. Special building for Spartan women. Deals average damage to all units except for siege. Athenians New building Propylaea. Doubles other player's structure build time. Visible to all players. Eco: Weakest in phase 1. Weak in phase 2. Strongest in phase 3. Macedonians New tech Military Reforms. Allows to build new building Reformed Army Barracks. Each one can recruit 16 Lothos pikeman lines, which are population free. Can heal Lothos infantry. Siege workshop can also be built on enemy/ally territory. Can build ballistas in Age 2. Romans New tech Marian Reforms. Allows to build new building Tent. Each one can recruit up to 8 Contubernium swordsmen squads, which are population free. Can heal Contubernium units. Rome champions cost the same as the hero, to reduce their numbers in battle and enhance their role as the general's vanguard. Infantry got a vanguard aura that increases hero's armor if the hero is near, and cavalry increase attack. New skin for Rome's outposts.

caldera de aceite

Are you possibly using a browser plugin that forces https even if the site doesn't support it? That has been the most common reason for downloads not working recently, so I would suggest looking into that.

@DarcReaver i'll try to be concise 2) I guess its a matter of personal preference. 3) My last post was my last try. We still dont agree. I've already explained about this. There is no point debating further. Anyways since I'm not in position to showcase my design in a mod. So my views dont matter. 4) Already said before in this thread. No point repeating. 5) Hard battalions can work fine. But since I don't hate micro in games. I don't feel that strong need of them. Still any change would be good right now. The game right now is a mess. I look forward to what updates come up in future alpha. Though any base level reworking is sure to turn off one or the other part of gaming community.

It's the simple controls part I am skeptical of, really, and the added micromanagement. Because now you're spending time gathering up like-units and forming them into battalions. Even if you use some clever hotkey configs to make this seamless, probably using the big space bar that is currently useless, you still have to take the extra time to gather the right units together and make a battalion. I wouldn't mind seeing both concepts in action so the team can decide what approach is better. One thing I also remember is with the soft battalions concept you have some players just mosh pit fighting, others using battalions, and still others having mixed singles and battalions all mixed together, and now the combat isn't so "nice and neat" anymore like how we want it. The one major benefit of a hard battalion system, I think, is that the combat is guaranteed to look and act how we want it to. I am not closed off to a soft battalion system with single units needed to be formed up. But the only reason to do that is to make sure to keep the complete citizen-soldier concept intact. So then there's added complexity to the formation/battalion/combat system in order to keep the citizen-soldier concept whole. But once you start breaking down the citizen-soldier concept and removing bits of it or reducing its effects, you have to ask why not just cut it neatly in half and do what I propose: gatherers* are singles, fighters are battalions with building capability. * I can still see some kind of call-to-arms militia feature with the gatherers so they take up swords and pitchforks when attacked, definitely.

1- related to realism. Since 1 citizen is trained in 10 seconds. But suddenly 25 soldiers come out in 30 seconds or so. maybe we can change the train times so nvm. Also this feature means that you have lesser variety of units on map in early part of game. Also hero units cant be added to battalions for their planned bonuses. There's no real reason why - we cant have single unit gatherers and battalion training military. except that current citizen soldier system would need changing Only thing is why cant we have goodness of both with Flexible Battalion system, if simple controls are also implemented. Like was laid out in plans originally. What does locked battalion training have above it?

http://striketactics.net/devblog

I am starting to think there needs to be a compromise position regarding citizen-soldiers. I think we can have gatherers and soldiers, where gatherers, i.e citizens or slaves or villagers, are single units and soldiers are battalion units. We can make soldiers also able to build, albeit slower than your villagers, retaining part of their citizen-soldier abilities. What do you think of this? In a lot of ways this is more "classic" than currently, even with the battalions.

This is not what happened with the design of BfME2. At the time I watch many developer videos about the game. You said so yourself, the battalions in BfME2 made battle management easier, so what are they compensating for when they made econ sooo easy? They were compensating for console limitations. That's right. The PC version of the game was just a console port, with a hero builder tacked into it. Now, build that game for PC first and the game design is blown wide open for more complexity, like true directional combat bonuses and a deeper econ and base building aspect.

I want bring youtubers trolls here, because my others hobbies about watching series , etc. now the problem the guys thinks that I'm a feme , hahahaha.

Lol sure. I even forgot that you changed your name back before I was even posting videos.

The graphics looks nice, remember in YouTube I'm not lion. Hehehehe.

Lion letting me do the honors even though he got to watch it first Here's my recent one.

If you're going to produce locked battalions from the barracks etc to reduce lag then embedding a priest in the battalion is possible. For a basic battalions take your spear men (Or what ever) into blender clone them 10 times in two rows of five. Run the animation to check they look right. No clipping allowed. Add a single hit box/ bounding box and center of rotation. Export as a new unit. Add a single damage bar. If it falls to 10% have that group unit despawn and spawn 3 or four lone spearmen. (Who knows? They may still win. Who are we kidding!) For a mixed unit of melee/ ranged formations. Clone a row of guys with shields and a row of guys with ranged weapons behind them. Off set them so they are not shooting their shield bearer in the back of the head. Add the bounding box, hit box etc. For a self healing unit add a priest to the back row and require the temple as the prerequisite for the formation. When destroyed the priest is one of the surviving single units. I can think of a few other formation combinations but you get the idea. Instead if players spamming an ant train of hundreds of single units it's ten compound units (same total cost) with some being elites with healers in them. I've reposted this with the heading battalion as a separate topic.

As it should be, right? I mean, what is the use of raiding the enemy's isolated gathering spots if they can just immediately retrain any of the gatherers I kill from the nearby storehouse? Look, resource gathering away from your centers of power should be possible in the game, in this we agree. But we disagree in that you seem to think that it should be without risk or easy to do. IMHO, we should make it a high risk/high reward situation to have a resourcing operation outside the player's territory.

These maps are the ones I mentioned in the trade discussion. They have trading on one protected island and battles on another and in some cases it's clearly only the trade carts that can be producing lag.

Hi Lea, nice to meet you! Sounds promising, where can we listen to your work? Do you have anything (more or less) in the style of the existing 0 A.D. score? Thanks,

Though we can judge better only after seeing the concept in action. But my current opinion on it is- 5 Resources It might be needed to split metal. though i'm not sure yet. Usually more than 5 resources make a game too complex. Though we can simplify it so that. Only 4 resources matter at a point in game.- Food, Wood, Stone, Iron in early part of game. And Food, Wood, Iron, Silver in late game (after most important structures are built already, and stone is not needed much) Conversely. Maybe this change can wait till the end. After other gameplay improvements are done, this might not be needed. Gathering Dynamics I dont think gathering spots should be limited per resource site. Lets talk about Warcraft 3 for eg- It has only 2 resources- gold, wood. And Pop space. Even in that game only gold mines are limited. not wood. Also all of the gold mines have same graphic, and same value (eg 5000 gold). It has very limited options in terms of economy and economy management. These games are very combat oriented and in general are very different from 0AD. 0AD Map shows a world with realistic terrain. Each resource has a variety of presentation. eg- Stone- Large an small mines of different size. stone runes, statues. Limiting it wouldnt seem logical to player. Population cap I agree population should be restricted by phase. But limiting house to 10 in 1st phase. and multiplying pop capacity in 2nd and 3rd phase is not the correct way, imo. Also military units are not constantly at war. They do gather a bit. or can be idle. Changing so that only gatherers require pop space. and not military. would be changing a lot. It would become a different game altogether. After reading it all. I have realised that though we agree that something seems off about the game currently. Most of us disagree on what are the real issues here. While trying to rectify the situation. We should be careful to not change the game completely if smaller changes can get the desired result. First lets talk about what is good in 0AD. What parts of it appeals to the players. Things which are unique in it, which give its identity.- Things are (mostly) logical. The soldiers are designed to be like what used to be in those times (Citizen-Soldier). There are both male and female gatherers with their respective strengths in gathering based on what would actually be. The resources used in game are all the basic resources which are there. Instead of having only gold and wood like some other games. Though I dont agree with resource cost choices for many units and techs. There is a beautiful terrain composed of different forms of these 4 resources. A player harvests from his surroundings. Not like some games in which most of the terrain is barren and only some focal points have resources. I'm not saying one approach is better or worse. There are different types of RTS- AoE2, BFME2, Warcraft 3. these 3 are very different types of games and play very different. They have their pros and cons. Imo AoE2 had much more strategic depth and replayability than Warcraft 3. I like BFME2 better than these 2, but thats not because of the non existing economy management present in it. Coming back to 0AD. Players appreciate the realism in the game. How many things make sense. It wouldnt be good to lose its identity, if we can help it. So we should first try smaller measure before drastically changing everything and creating a different game. Now about the issues present currently. My view of them- 1) Buildings don't have specific roles. CC can be used to produce military. Barracks is usually built near forests to build workers. This is important because player never has to chose between focusing on economy or on military(by building barracks). everything(eco nd military) is available in all buildings, no variations to allow different strategies. 2) There's no control on the unit production rate from buildings. Especially economic unit production. 3) The citizen soldier concept is not implemented properly. Too much chaos when attacking or defending. 4) Similar to above- the gathering is not done as was intended. Only females created in beginning. only Champions in the end. Citizen soldiers jack of all trades, good at nothing. 5) Eco management is very tough. By this I mean to efficiently use it. An good player in other games would be able to keep resource collected in bank close to zero, by spending them as soon as collected, and using gatherers efficiently by switching them over according to his build order. This task is near impossible in 0AD. First because of 2 types of gatherers- food gatherer and rest. And also because theres no fixed or constant rate of economic growth. The gathers can be trained singly, in batches of 5 or 10, 15 etc. Also the fertility festival tech at house is broken. Also a major population of gatherers also fights. And after fights its usually not clear how many gatherers you lost per resource. 6) Battle strategy is non existent. Currently it includes massing any one type of unit and laming it. Either Javelin cav in beginning, or chariots or sword champions later. This is because of lack of effective counters. Hard countering shouldn't be removed unless Soft countering is ensured by combat mechanics. 7) Imbalance between Champion units and Citizen soldiers. It not only decreases the value of citizen soldiers but also creates imbalance between factions. which have led to a trend to give every faction 4 champions. which doesn't solve the issue but increases it. Champions should have been just a unique unit of each faction. 8) Phase progression doesn't mean much currently. So what, you get champions in phase 3. But its perfectly possible that someone in phase 1 has better economy and beats someone who is in phase 2. 9) Hack and Pierce attack. Pierce attack of an archer and of a spearman are not the same. One is shrugged off by heavy armour rider, one is deadly for the horse. And then siege damage is added to emulate crush attacks. Siege damage to buildings should always be a separate entity. eg it becomes difficult to implement upgrades like fire arrows, which mainly increase siege capacity, and a lesser increase in anti unit damage. Also Units like Mauryan- Yodha which have siege damage only. And become weak against all units inspite of having capacity to cause good crush damage. 10) Trader, Corral. This much comes to mind right now. These are the things which prevent 0Ad from having more depth in strategy and a fun gameplay. I dont think locust gathering as described is important. Though being spread out on map is much better, but it can be achieved with less drastic solutions. Also man spam trains of military units is definitely bad. Because that means units(mostly a single type) are constantly spammed without any tactics and strategy. But this concept is not the same for economic units. To hold a large army your economic support must also be larger. If the gameplay requires to control the distribution of economic units according to build orders and keep redistributing them as needed. then its not a spam, and doesnt matter if the number of units around a mine are more, till it looks realistic. In the end. My view is that- smaller changes should be tried first. which i believe can easily solve the issues I oultined above without changing the feel of the game.

You answered my question only partially. So far you have identified most issues with the current gameplay and you have outlined some possible ways for fixing them. That's a good start, but it's still quite far away from a concept that can be implemented. Decision have to be made where multiple alternative solutions have been suggested, dependencies between features have to be identified and clarified, detailed descriptions have to be written per feature etc. If developers want to help, they need very specific and detailed information how a feature should work. Do you think it's realistic to design such a concept, write it down and then also implement it in roughly 6 months (I guess 3-6 is too ambitious)? As I said, it would not be complete yet, but it should be complete enough to give a good impression of the final gameplay. If you don't know how long it would take to implement something, that's fine. you could still estimate how long it would take until the first parts of the concept are finalized enough so that someone can start with the implementation and how long you'd need for the whole concept.

Because that the base of the game with AoM 2. Have some features and concepts from Total War and RoN. 1-Agree I open a topic about that, start with villagers only and poor soldiers , so this way the development is more slow in early. 2-Agree, we must change the first point. 3-please explain that. 4-explain it. 5-more explanations, please. Yes indeed. But if no one does nothing means nobody see the problem, saying is bad isn't enogh. You need have arguments and solutions.

0 AD is based propio of these techniques, the game itself has the ability to do things that others can not do, it is still a strategic and it is true, but it uses the strategy in a way different from what we would do another rts, as you say it is strange that there are soldiers linked to the economy, but this is the basis of 0 AD remove it would be to destroy a building that is already in the process of harness and rebuild it from scratch, we ever wonder why we talk always art? Why have the fundamental component of the game is created, the ability to do things that you have listed are the basis of 0AD not to be found in another RTS, but I'm just repeating what I have already said before, change the foundation would be a new beginning and I do not understand why if you already this principle has already been built a long time. Propio this point it apart from AOE II, otherwise the game would concepts too similar, these changes have been made to create a game SIMILAR TO AGE OF EMPIRE II, these concepts may also not like the game but they are propio these to make an independent game 0 AD to AOE II, with its techniques, and independent, and I find that to awaken the public interest, there must be something innovative, not the same rules of the same RTS, we are no longer in the era of the golden age of empires, we will be among some in the golden age of 0AD.

These videos are less "showy". There's no need to show off graphics and gameplay when demonstrating pathfinding See also, Retro Ahoy on Youtube and his video about Pacman's ghost ai https://youtu.be/15dxuAbTC0A?t=7m48s

No precisamente pero hay muchos tutoriales en la web, en YouTube.

the Persian have their own Dinosaur these but the real is this Protoceratops https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griffin here is an article about this Ancient Dinosaur Depictions http://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/evidence/historical/ancient/dinosaur/