Leaderboard

Archers Overpowered? 10 archers vs. 10 skirmishers Units start 60 meters apart (archer max range) Theory: Skirmishers under fire as they have to approach by 30 meters Results: 6 archers left (all fully healthy) Observations: The archer range was decisive here 10 archers vs. 10 skirmishers Units start 30 meters apart (skirmisher range) Theory: Skirmishers can attack immediately, archer range nullified, strong javelin attack strength should even the odds Results: 1 archer left (full health) Observations: Remove archers' range advantage and things even out considerably; archers still slightly better, probably their attack interval advantage 10 archers vs. 10 slingers Units start 60 meters apart (archer max range) Theory: Slingers under fire briefly as they close to within 45 meters Results: 6 archers left (avg 75% health) Observations: As the slingers cost less abundant resources, this isn't a very good outcome for slingers 10 archers vs. 10 slingers Units start 45 meters apart (slinger range) Theory: Slingers can attack immediately, archer range nullified Results: 1 archer left (10% health); 3 archers left (avg 20% health), 3 slingers left (avg 40% health), 1 slinger left (50% health) Observations: Remove archers' range advantage and things even out considerably; After the first test was so close I moved some units around slightly by about 1 meter. The fact that results came down to a 1 meter placement tells me they are pretty much balanced in combat against each other. Is this desired? 10 archers vs. 8 cavalry swordsmen Units start 60 meters apart (archer max range) Theory: Cavalry under fire for 60 meters; melee cavalry should be archers' natural counter Results: 7 cavalry swordsmen left (avg 80% health) Observations: Unsurprisingly, the archers were massacred. This is a good balance IMHO. 10 archers vs. 8 cavalry spearmen Units start 60 meters apart (archer max range) Theory: Cavalry under fire for 60 meters; melee cavalry should be archers' natural counter Results: 7 cavalry swordsmen left (avg 80% health); identical results to cav swordsmen Observations: Unsurprisingly, the archers were massacred. I thought the cav spearmen would perform a little worse than cav swords due to their slower attack interval, but it didn't work out that way. This is a good balance. 10 archers vs 10 infantry spearmen Units start 60 meters apart (archer max range) Theory: Infantry spearmen in theory should fall prey to archers; we'll see Results: 6 spearmen left (avg 85% health) Observations: Surprised by this outcome. Archers were massacred by spearmen, probably because of the spearmen's double health. No spearman died until the last 10 meters of their charge. 10 archers vs 10 infantry spearmen Units start 30 meters apart Theory: Infantry spearmen in theory should fall prey to archers Results: 9 spearmen left (avg 75% health) Observations: Unsurprised by this outcome given the 60 meter tests, but this still doesn't feel right. Very unbalanced toward the spearmen. 10 archers vs 10 infantry swordsmen Units start 60 meters apart (archer max range) Theory: Infantry swordsmen in theory should fall prey to archers, especially since Results: 8 swordsmen left (avg 80% health) Observations: Archers were massacred by swordsmen, when it should have been the other way around since the swordsmen were under fire for the entire 60 meters. Conclusion I don't think archers are overpowered per se. At least not on a unit by unit basis. Their range does seem extreme though, and they only cost food and wood, so in a meat shield situation or raiding situation the results could turn heavily in their favor.

boonGUI User interface mod for the RTS game 0 A.D. Everyone can follow the development, contribute to discussions, report bugs, suggest features or even make pull requests. Install Choose your preferred method GitHub git clone https://github.com/LangLangBart/boonGUI.git Linux: ~/.local/share/0ad/mods/ macOS: ~/Library/Application\Support/0ad/mods/ Windows: ~\Documents\My Games\0ad\mods\ Pyromod Drag and drop the file over the 0ad start icon or double click it. The mod will be unpacked and placed in your 0ad mods folder ZIP Unpack it it in your /0ad/mods/ folder Launch 0 A.D., click Settings and Mod Selection. Double-click boonGUI, click Save Configuration and Start Mods. Troubleshooting If you get errors/warnings after upgrading, delete the existing boonGUI folder and install the mod again. If that doesn't help, just post a message here or on GitHub.

For the number loving folks I present some up-to-date statistics regarding development of 0 A.D.'s Alpha and pre-Alpha versions. I am doing this for the purpose of information only and appreciate any work done by the development team so far. The exact numbers can be read in the changelogs wiki page. Enjoy!

Buenas ; @Lion.Kanzen , esto es un Primer boceto ; (como no tenía certeza de a que se refería me vendría bien que corrigiera lo antes posible) Disculpen las molestias*

I know it was given to all members, but it is a badge, it implies responsibility to wear it. Thank you and I join you in this act of giving thanks, I never thought I would have such an honor, however I do not think I deserve it, but I will not despise your recognition. Thank you all for this beautiful hobby and non-profit work. It is an honor to be with you, even with those who do not hold me in esteem, thanks to my colleagues Sundiata, Genava55 and Alexander, for giving me words of encouragement. Thanks to Stanislas, Enrique, Feneur, Lordgood a very practical leader and to Michael D Hafer who inspires us with his extroverted ideas to keep dreaming together in this project. Thanks to the art team and collaborators. Thank you 0 A.D. community, it's been almost 10 years of belonging to this project, in September I will be 10 years since I joined. if my attitude made you uncomfortable, it was not a bad intention. We have moved forward and improved, I will always give my unconditional friendship to all of you. And to those who have not, I will pray that everything goes well for you and that you improve in whatever you propose to do. @Sundiata @Genava55 @borg- @Nescio @Ykkrosh Thanks to Philip Taylor who was the person who pointed out to me that there was a forum, where I could participate and give my opinion, as well as contribute.

There will be less people agreeing with you on that than what you think there are people supporting A24. You may spread toxicity but the result is that you alienate people around you even if some may agree with your arguments. 0 A.D. has been declared (near) dead several times in the past and right now it rather seems the opposite. Development has increased and that won't change because someone feels the need to be disrespectful. It is obvious that not everyone can be happy with all changes, but everyone can participate in a respectful manner.

Unix timestamps of course. A game titled "-2208988800" is sure to arouse some curiosity.

MORE HP TO ALL UNITS PLEASE FIGHTS ARE VERY TOO FAST

Please respect each other, criticise the game and its development all you want (though if you actually want to increase the chances of your opinion being considered -- doing so in a polite and constructive way is a good idea), but this forum is no place to mistreat other people.

Congratulations to all the developers of this incredible game made in a collaborative and completely voluntary way.

Greetings! I quite new to playing 0ad and so glad I finally got there. The game is amzing yet and has so much potential! One of the most important things to add in the future would be more factions. I know there many other things to do but is so amazing to try out new factions and maybe some day have the whole ancient family together in the game Now I have a few propositions: - Thracians (amazing military!) - Pontos (the mighty greek state in northern anatolia) - Scythians (first nomad civs with amazing horse archers) - Armenians! (the origin of cataphracts; mighty kingdom between Rome and the Parthians) - Nubians (rich kingdom south of Carthage) - Chinese civs (like Han?; in might and wealth more than equal to the romans) - maybe also one or two mesoamerican civs? (like olmeks?); would be amazing to see those ancient pyramids! Thank you so much for making this game!

I just had an idea: what about supporting two ingame UIs natively, i.e. a "casual UI" and a "competitive UI" (+ maybe an "observer UI")? Apart from the extra work for the developers, wouldn't that solve the problem of different player types? Maybe @borg-@ValihrAnt ("competitive") and @Nescio@Sundiata ("casual") could say something about their preferences...?

To say this release has been rushed is a little ridiculous on it's own to be honest.

Legal I'm not owner by this content, but I share this public content with our community understanding the legal consequences. http://waywardstrategist.com/about/ And We Share the vision from the Owner of this Site, I share this only by educational context or point of view. source: http://waywardstrategist.com/2015/05/04/lets-talk-rts-user-interface-part-1-interview-with-dave-pottinger/ Introduction One of the most crucial aspects of the design of any game is its user interface. This is an incredibly broad topic, ranging from the game’s menu system to its in game graphical user interface or HUD (heads-up display) to its interaction model – keyboard and mouse, joystick, game pad, or what have you. A game’s HUD is one of the most basic and most heavily utilized sources of information to the player in a real-time strategy game – many an RTS has been accused of forcing its players to ‘play the UI’ instead of being more free, as in genres like shooters, to interact mostly with the game’s world and environment. The HUD combined with the game’s control scheme (or mouse and keyboard interactions model) encompass the vast majority of a player’s knowledge of and control over the game space, and it behooves game designers to get these systems just right for players, to reach that age old Platonic goal of allowing the player’s intentions to translate directly into action in-game. Respected RTS game designer Dave Pottinger, now president of indie studio BonusXP, who has worked on storied RTS titles such as all of the Age of Empires games, and Halo Wars, has graciously lent me his ear (metaphorically speaking) and generously lent me his time to answer a couple of questions I had regarding his thoughts as a game designer on this critical facet of the real-time strategy genre. Wayward: It is my opinion, and tell me if you agree (this’d be a great place to throw in a comment if you were so inclined) that by and large the RTS genre is sticking with known quantities: for the most part, RTS interfaces are comparable to those developed at least 10 or 15 years ago Dave Pottinger: I think that’s true. 3 reasons: Part of that is just that there are less RTS games. Less games means less chance to innovate and see new stuff.RTS UI is hard. Improvements for the hardcore are almost always in opposition to improvements for the casual. Just today I decried how we allow you to scroll the camera while drag selecting because it’s terrible for noobs. 3 poeple instantly said “Well, you can’t change that!”. Every genre has those types of tried-and-true assumptions, but few have as much UI as an RTS game. Connecting back to your question, I think it’s harder to innovate when you have so much UI that is established and expected.I think RTS UI is something of a solved beast. Back when I started, there was still a debate about one or two mouse buttons. Thankfully, that’s out of the way. But, by and large, the RTS UIs of old were pretty good.I do fully expect other UI paradigms to come up in RTS games. Absolutely. I can’t wait (and hope to help introduce a few of them). But, I think those need to be accompanied with some game changes. If you have a game that plays like SC or Age, I think you’re going to end up with a UI like SC or Age because that UI works pretty darn well for controlling that type of game. Wayward: At their core, what are your goals regarding real-time strategy interaction models (both with ingame graphical UI and with keyboard/mouse interaction systems) Dave: At the simplest level, we need players to feel like the UI is allowing them to control the game. Well, maybe that’s not the simplest way of looking at it; whether or not they have fun with the game is probably the simplest metric. Nevertheless, IMO, people get most frustrated with UIs when they are unpredictable and/or they don’t know how to make it do what they want. If I have to answer the “How do I do XYZ? question too often during a playtest, then I know that one’s in the crapper. So, at the base level, I want a functional UI. Once you learn something, it should be easy to remember how to do it. I personally want a very consistent UI. The UI should also be responsive. That’s not a hard concept, but it can be hard to execute. Many RTS games run a lockstep, synchronous simulation (to push the unit counts so high). That can create difficult situations because the units may not start moving right away when you command them. That means we need to solve the responsiveness issue some other way. At a higher level, I think an RTS game has a harder-than-average presentation issue… We need to deliver critical info via a split second glance. That’s hard. No one wants to study the gait of a the unit to see if he’s limping when they’re really playing competitively. They need a way to see how much health the unit has at a glance. Hence hitpoint bars. Bumping up even more, if we can solve the functional and presentation issues, then we can start to think about how it does that. Does it look good? Does it fit the mood of the game? Is it fun to navigate? Where can we put the little dashes of love that make someone enjoy a UI? I do know some folks who start with the UI and then work backwards. I don’t think that way, so I have to do it this way Keyboard is similar, but there’s less room/need for excitement and pizzaz. Do I get some response when I hit a hotkey? Does your keymapper work? Great. Move on. Wayward:What do you think are the primary strengths and failings of RTS user interaction design as a whole? If this is too broad, can you comment on the strengths and failings of a representative game (perhaps one you’ve worked on) + comment on what you would’ve liked to see done differently? Dave: Broadly… I’m not sure I’d consider any RTS game to have a great UI. I say that because I think there’s simply too much information that you have to present. I do think there are plenty of RTS and RTS-like games that have good UIs given the gameplay they must serve. SC2 and LOL come to mind. But, I still don’t think either of those games is a good UI. Too much info, too geared towards the hardcore. I also humbly say those things expecting the same critiques to be lobbed at our past work (Age, AOM, Halo Wars) and our current game, Servo. We have a lot of information to show you so that you can make the best informed decision possible. Strategy folks tend to like that. Our job is to present all those things in the best UI possible. I’ll mention two specific fails… The “giant” Age of Empires 3 UI. It wasn’t really *that* big, but once the game was out, it was instantly lampooned. It surprised us. We had spent so much time arguing/debating/redoing that UI; we just never really noticed that it had gained too much size. We burned all of our energy and time trying to make everyone happy; I don’t think we were ever able to step back and evaluate it from a fresh perspective. So, when that reaction hit, the AD for the game (Dave Kubalak) and I sat down and just did the mini version that night without asking anyone’s opinion. Went out shortly after. The SelectAll button from Halo Wars. I hated it then and still hate it now. It was such a cave against the fact that we just couldn’t make the UI work well enough. We couldn’t get control groups to work the way we wanted and we were out of time (being that the studio was getting closed and all). We added it to make the game “as playable as possible”. It instantly had the expected effect. It was so easy to use that it became all anyone ever used. It really un-did a lot of the fine work that went into unit differentiation and special abilities. But, without it, the game wouldn’t have been playable. Wayward:What is the cardinal sin a designer can commit when establishing an interaction model for a strategy game? Dave: I think there are plenty:) A few that come to mind… Assuming everyone will want to “play like you play”. With RTS games having more UI than your typical game, there’s a bigger chance for failure here. You need a UI that can appeal to people who don’t play the same way that you do. In some cases, you may be on the losing end of preference, too. For example, I don’t personally love the QWERTY-style hotkeys that are the rage today. I understand them, though. I can accept that lots of people like them, too. So, we’ll just have an option.Assuming that everyone *wants* to play the way you play. Similar, but importantly different than the previous one. Just because you know the right answer, don’t expect everyone to want the same goal. Everyone has their “limit” in terms of how much energy and effort they will expend in a given game. It’s a huge mistake to assume that everyone will have more fun if they play better. Some folks are okay playing a slower paced game. Let them. Yeah, they won’t win a tournament, but they likely don’t care.Assuming that you are actually any good at the game you are making. You are not. Don’t think you are. Find someone who is and watch them play. That will change everything.Thanks again for your time, Dave! http://waywardstrategist.com/2015/05/04/lets-talk-rts-user-interface-part-1-interview-with-dave-pottinger/

Thanks for these tests and the explanations. Some players have tried similar tests too. The results from this type of test are interesting, but I find it hard to build robust conclusions out of them. For example, if you change the starting position of archers (archers concentrated in one spot or archers surrounding the enemy), results can change significantly. The power of archers also comes a lot from microing them (hit, spread and escape). Obstacles plays an important role too (buildings through which you can teleport, forests, palisades/wall...). Balancing the range advantage of archers is quite difficult. If melee units can provide a reasonable counter, nothing prevent a player with archers to make melee units too. And since cavalry units do not play the same economic role as infantry, I would guess the most relevant test would be slingers versus archers and slingers versus skirmishers which are the units with similar role in game. The corresponding numbers found seems off by a large margin to me. Archers are now also a decent counter to both catapults and bolts if they are not well protected too. Skirmishers/melees do a terrible job at protecting sieges against archers. It is now hard to use catapults to destroy a fort protected by archers. Unbalance between civilization with or without archers get worse since mauryans and persians can get archery tradition on top of other upgrades and benefits from population cap advantage which make it easy to outnumber the enemy. I do not mean that balancing this would be easy since the current balance is the result of aggregating many other changes (units speed, rotation speed, no hp increase with phases...). I would like to emphasize that the problem is not to be minimized

A saying as old as the internet itself: don't feed the troll. As for banning, I don't feel strongly either way, I certainly like the lackadaisical approach that we have currently but I've been on the receiving end of the trolling itself. I feel the bigger issue is more about the extremely low quality content and signal-to-noise ratio. Especially considering we have to read that crap, and that only people involved in development effort itself can truly appreciate what has been done (tks @borg-@Nescio the whole 0ad dev team and reviewers @Feldfeld @ValihrAnt). Even not polished feedback from players is welcome, and even with a certain level of salt, it's at least legitimate. Just a soft-ban on certain subforums (that require some level of intelligibility) would be enough in my understanding, they can still trash talk anywhere else. (PS: I don't want this to takeover the discussion, just my 2 cents)

I would like to participate in a tournament now.

Option 3: 1 game. All vs all. Last man standing.

This topic reminds me of the original Golden Axe eletronic game, when we were still playing in the arcades. Long time ago. Almost inside 0 a.D. time frame, lol. In that game, the bodies of defeated enemies were petrified on the ground. Due to insufficient memory, this feature was removed from the Genesis / Mega Drive port.

Think that means postdata, or P.S. in English.

Recuperado de: Wikiloc | Ruta RUTA COSTERA: parque arqueológico campa torres-faro campa torres-parque campa torres Esta es una reconstrucción de una "choza" propia de los pueblos castreños (en este caso de los astures, pero como ya he dicho, común a todo el espacio castreño; así que podría encajar perfectamente en la facción). Se encuentra en el parque arqueológico de la Campa Torres (que no es otra cosa más que la musealización de ese yacimiento arqueológico): Parque Arqueológico-Natural de la Campa Torres | Web de Gijón (gijon.es). Lo más interesante de esta reconstrucción es el tejado. Destacan especialmente los listones de madera (se cuelgan de la viga central interior), usados para sujetar la cubierta vegetal del mismo e impedir que este se desmorone por las inclemencias climáticas (viento..etc.). Estas técnicas están documentadas en los llamados "teitos", construcciones que hasta el siglo pasado seguían usándose en zonas de montaña de todo el noroeste de la Península Ibérica especialmente (sobre todo en las actuales Galicia, Asturias y Cantabria). Este artículo sobre las "brañas" (término local agrícola y ganadero al que los teitos están estrechamente unidos), ilustra más del tema: 10358-38243-1-SM.pdf (upv.es)

You are right, thanks for this deep explanation and for the test stuff performed. I think my words are confusing (I am not English native and my English is not this good, sorry for that). Taking a look at the attached game in my original post, what do you think about the resulting game-play of the range of the archers you have so well underlined ?

Blinking selections on minimap and terrain on the icon hover, and red icon with skeleton in bottom right.

It is good to have people who know a lot about the civilizations that we are sometimes trying to represent, suggestions like these are welcome and allow us to delve a little deeper into said civilizations and have a clearer approach, I hope you can continue helping us by providing much more material to be able more or less to discern a little more these factions that are difficult for us since it is a very turbulent and dark period of universal history, I hope more of your suggestions, thank you very much.

All individual features were discussed on Phabricator (https://code.wildfiregames.com/) and in the balancing group message (this is done more public now for A25). As for polling on the forums, keep in mind that a _very large_ portion of the players never goes to these forums at all.

I'll refuse to understand how some people can just be this toxic and full of theirselves honestly. Don't you guys know no one is getting payed and everyone is giving their free time and will to work on this? To not agree, criticise, discuss is one thing but ^ that = EDIT: Also the prime example of what i meant when i said the devs shouldnt weigh to hard on negative opinions like these.

You are making a major mistake. The Avars of the Caucasus which have migrated there from Iran, are not linked with the Pannonian Avars at all. Their name similarity is only a coincidance. The early medieval Avars (pannonian Avars) are Turkic. The Avars in Dagestan have nothing in common with them. this flag belongs to the Avar Khanate, in Dagestan, not the Pannonian Avars, again, the two have nothing in common.

There is a functionality that I want to create for 0 ad. It is a feature that comes from the Caesar series. I like the trading system with cities that are not in the map area. But to program this feature, it is necessary to program quite a new extra interface, that is, an extra international trade screen. The idea is commercial with other neighboring cities on the map, for example, the one I am showing you above, you come exotic as well as certain goods,resources that your city has plenty to spare. What I imagine to do is to be able to trade slaves with mercenaries and simply even create exotic resources something that was also one of the features of Rise of Nations.

We definitely have different points of view.

The A.D. B.C./C.E. B.C.E. system for chronology has been eliminated. What system do you propose for a replacement and what does it mean for the title of the game? Example: one option would be to use the system of AUC (Ab Urbe Condita), the date of the supposed founding of Rome. Hence 0 A.D. would become either 753 AUC or 754 AUC. It's hard to exactly say since the year 0 does not exist. Probably the best compromise would be 753 AUC or 754 AUC. That way nobody would be happy. What are your completely serious answers to clearly controversial topic?

I think there is no truly "neutral" and universal language for that... Even if you would go strictly scientific and define years by a universal constant as the speed of light c, that would confuse most people and would still presume our scientific view of the world as mandatory (when you look at all cultures in history and even present, many have different views and explanations of the world as a whole)... So years are usually counted relative to an event important to a culture... which for the Western World for many centuries has been the roots of Christianity. For 0 A.D.'s civs that is somewhat arbitrary since 1) our timeframe is before Christ 2) many civs probably had their independent naming scheme As with Christianity, Roman and Greek culture has been important as well for the Western World, so I could follow your proposal. However, Rome was still small when Persians, Macedonians, Mauryans reached their peak so you could as well pick their system... barrels, feet, inches, °F (not that °C is that much better), mmHg and whatever... Same reason as above, but at least make one system for the "Western" world (better for all the world)

cheats are not allowed in rated games, but keep in mind rated games are only 1v1. also there is clear red text that cheats are enabled, also every player needs to press I am ready button before host can start the match so host cannot enable cheats without other players knowing, so I suggest don't use I am always ready button so you will be unset as ready when host changes any settings

@Palaxin This could be interesting for you.

I can give the art style a pass, but some of the dumbass units make me scratch my head too much. Plus some of the dumb perks like slapping units with wet tuna fish...

In fact, it is already present in game:

It took us three years to launch. Before it only took 4 or 3 months.

in fact in theory you could. But I don't know if the animations work properly, or I don't remember the number of soldiers needed to form the testudo.

Participate in the debates about the alpha 25 gameplay, if you have well-founded and specific ideas aimed at improving the game you will surely be heard.

make it possible for soldiers to marry women and make babies that later can level up and become heroes

Keep up the good work

Macedonia 31 - Margiana Oasis (328 BC) After Spitamenes' forces failed to capture Bactra, there were fewer and fewer places for them to find shelter and supplies. One of the remaining towns where the Sogdian rebels could still use for re-supplies was the oasis town of Margiana. In the spring of 328 BC, Alexander sent out his general Craterus to the west, to fortify the town and prevent Spitamenes from using it as a base. Playing as Craterus, you arrive south of Margiana. Your scouts report that Spitamenes' horsemen are circling the town, while two large rebel camps are located to the north. Your primary objective is to secure the town, take charge of its defenses and fortify it in preparation for any rebel attacks. Your secondary objective is to destroy the rebel camps in the area. The town is surrounded by several farmsteads which the rebels are so far leaving alone (as they surely hope to secure some of the food for their supplies). AI Settings: all AIs should be set to Sandbox

Buenas Estos son los últimos bocetos de edificios -Edificio especial-Sauna lusitana; (vista frontal) (vista trasera) -mercado lusitano; (vista frontal) (vista trasera) Disculpen las molestias ocasionadas*

buenos días /tardes Boceto herrería lusitana; (vista frontal) (vista trasera) Disculpen me las molestias*

If he used the original makehuman mesh and not one of the the low poly proxies no way it weighs in at 161,238 vertexes and 161,238 faces or about 313,570 tris BTW I'm a moderator on the makehuman forums Enjoy the Choice

I put the a23 and a24 version of this mod on GitHub at https://github.com/andy5995/CartographyMode @wowgetoffyourcellphone The a24 branch

I think we can approximate mountains a lot better. I once advocated for us to make mountain meshes/models (and they could still be done), but after exploring 4096x4096 terrain textures for Alpha 25 I've come to the conclusion that by using extra high resolution textures we can make some very nice mountains indeed: Now, I hand sculpted that mountain in Atlas, but would it be possible to approximate these kinds of realistic mountain shapes in a random map script? If not, perhaps we can use height maps to do so and then the map scripts can render the mountains from those.