Leaderboard

Atlas really needs the option to choose the biome of the random map the designer is generating. Mainland random map, for instance, has no option to choose a different biome. It always generates an Alpine biome map. There is no drop menu, as in game setup, to choose the biome it ill generate.

I believe that certain units should have their own statistics, which represent more what they were, in their time. like for example, the cataphracts that were heavily armored = less speed + stamina and a little more damage ... also the briton longswords that have the same stats as the other champions that use sword and shield -.- the elephants should have a small area attack not only frontal attack so that little by little it will be more important to choose each civ, for each phase and that the play styles will be more different per civ and player.

Elephants are now the only counter to siege towers, which would be riddicously OP if they were faster. I am against turning 0ad in a tank battles game.

"Solved" is probably impossible, this is true. But a reduction of harm is demonstrably a positive step forward. I was not aware that there were other lobby moderators aside user1, I thank you for the information. One thing that helps a lot was the integration of the lobby-to-discord bot implemented by Hannibal Barca, that is how I have been able to easily see some especially egregious activity in the lobby, through my 0ad Discord server, I subsequently reported the user, and action was taken. I have generally stayed away from these kinds of controversial topics in the forum due to my social anxieties, but I have decided that it is important to spread the load among more people to reduce the negative effects of negativity and toxicity. Having more people responsible for absorbing and rectifying the negative activity will improve the mental health of everyone involved, as they will not have to be exposed to as much of it alone. I'm trying not to be upset about this comment, but I can't help but read things into it that might not even be there. When I read "will likely never be solved" my mind extends that to "so it's useless to try to make it better". That's not what you are implying, right? I thank you for your contribution, and apologise for picking it apart, I just want to more fully understand your perspective. I feel like my response here is an ego-driven defense mechanism, but I decided to post it anyway in order to process my reaction, so that I can learn to more effectively and objectively communicate my perspective, and so that others can learn from it also.

Therein I would say is the biggest problem. It should be viable to escort siege weapons.

I have a revision for this: D3968. I would like to try and merge it before A25 (btw @nani you might have input on this?) However, it will likely rely on trust.

this tower had melee attack. Here the Cataphracts.

I just want to see what additional thing is missing.

And check this.

He gave them incompetent siege. in DE even archers do a better job than the bolt shooters. Their siege towers are a joke in DE. I took out a fortress with a few spearmen but 5 bolt shooters and 3 siege towers cannot make a dent in anything.

Speaking of siege rams, one of the things that bothers me the most is the extreme discrepancy between melee and spears to counter. I mean, I get it they can have some different efficacy, but shouldn't be as extreme. This really is a turn off for immersion. Maybe this is going to be already patched in a25 tho, i'm not in the loop. Besides, I think rams are already tanky enough and I wouldn't favour to buff them even more. Instead, maybe is possible to tweak a little bit the state of elephants so they're not so OP as rn

Any thoughts on returning splash damage to catapults? I liked this mechanic in a23, but it was sometimes frustrating, it could do more damage to a smaller number of units, perhaps limiting cap on the net damage each shot can do? I think we should be careful to limit tech proliferation. A feature is broken? lets just make it an expensive tech! I think this is a solution sometimes, but we can't let it become a lazy way to "balance" something.

The game lacks many technologies for specific classes and units.

When I made the title of this tread, I purposely made it bi-ambiguous. It could mean ¨What would happen if pikemen had their attack rate halved?¨ and then the video would be the answer: They would still be excellent target dummies and that is the problem with the meta. It was not meant to be a serious question of ¨What do you think about if pikemen had their attack rate halved?¨. I just wanted to say that their current gameplay role seems ludicrous to me. I think the art team makes the models based on history. As a community I think we could all help out by shaping the balance such that the units serve a historically accurate role. If people want target dummies, they probably need to give that role to a unit with a big shield. Also I feel like the game should be shaped such that being a target dummy is not a thing. The problem does not lie with the art team, it lies with the people that decided pikemen needed to have huge armor stats.

If you want the json formatted for a specific tool I'd say make it a mod, unless there is just one such tool or one which basically defines a standard. Otherwise the json should be what makes most sense for 0ad. That format could also be used as a replacement for the current ini-style hotkey configuration which might be desirable anyway, so you can map a user facing string to the key value pair for instance. Then a script to convert it to different tools could be added.

Siege towers can also be countered by rams, catapults and melee troops, especially cavalry. But of course they must not get a speed bonus.

Also you can look at this

shouldn't C be "quit and view summary" instead?

It's not about the weight of a sword, light infantry is understood to have been more mobile than havy infantry in general. My biggest problem with @BreakfastBurrito_007's idea, however, is about gameplay: slowing down archers would kill their defining tactics, which are hit and run and archer rushes. Those are what make archers so fun to play, and if we slow them down they will be heavily crippled. What BB wants is to reduce their effective range around defensive positions, and that can be achieved in many ways, not only lowering archers speed. I think reducing archers damage at higher distances - either by raising arrows spread (already in SVN I believe), or enforcing a fixed damage dependent on distance - is the best way out of this bog, it would not change archers identity, but would make them just enough less effective in what they do best. It doesn't have any creepy eco implication, and it doesn't push us back in this endless swing where every alpha we reconsider the choices made in the last releases. Light infantry speeds were made equal for good reasons. And no, archers are not faster than slingers or javeliners, they have the same stats.

To be fair, there are other moderators in the lobby. Though not sure how active they are or what timezones they live in so it can happen that even if there will be more moderators, its not guaranteed 24 h moderation so the issue will likely not be solved anyway.

As others have explained, filter lists are not able to take context into account, leading to false positives. The solution is to have more active moderation, which means more volunteers are needed. These volunteers also need to prove that they are capable of performing their moderation duties appropriately without being too heavy-handed. It is a difficult conundrum, because it might be that there is no clear way for volunteers to prove that they will not over-moderate the community. The FOSS community sometimes tends to lean too heavily on "free-speech", without recognising the fact that responsible community moderation can increase the net-total of freedom of expression by limiting the ability of nefarious actors to use their speech to discourage minorities from having a voice. The main solution that other games have implemented is a crowdsourced one, with easy and visible tools for reporting harmful content. As far as I understand it, the only lobby moderator is user1. This person is not able to moderate in their sleep, so having at least one other moderator in the lobby would be a positive thing. This extra moderator should probably be someone who is not also a programmer, time should not be taken away from programming and given to moderation because the amount of programmers is limited. But the amount of people who are capable of responsible community moderation is much greater. The problem now comes back to choosing which people are capable of performing these moderation duties without over-moderating. I would have said that sil-vous-plait was someone who was capable of performing this moderation, until this passive aggressive and somewhat arrogant post. "spell out" reads to me as patronising. I think that maybe this person was just frustrated, and I do not want to discourage them by pointing this out. I've felt the same frustration that they have, so I cannot really give blame to them for acting on this frustration. The best guidelines that I know of in regards to enforcement are included in the Open Source Contributor Covenant https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/2/0/code_of_conduct/ Anyone who wants to put their name forward as a volunteer moderator should look to this covenant as a guide to how to perform moderation duties. And here is the point where I will put my hand up and say that I am willing to volunteer for this position, I can not say that I will be able to give a large amount of time to this duty, and I would say that at least one more person should also be given this responsibility. I also want to point out that I would not be offended if people decided that I am not suitable for this position. I hope that everyone will have good days.

I can't actually argue against switching elephant attack damage from hack to pierce. I think that's an indictment of how arbitrary EA's damage types are, more than anything else. More importantly though, I argue that this issue is merely symptomatic of the deeper problem that we've been discussing elsewhere: you guessed it... ranged vs melee balance and static defense vs unit balance. Elephants would have a harder time killing rams if those rams were actually escorted by meat shield to their target. However, no one escorts their rams because there is no unit type with sufficient arrow resistance to dive against static defense and ranged fire support.

Yes, I discovered 0AD through Homebrew casks, was and still is the one at the top of the list. There is also this YouTuber with a tier list of RTS games, the first one he starts with is 0AD. Best RTS Games of ALL Time! by BeastyqtSC2 (14/Dec/20)

https://github.com/Yekaterina999/0AD-Aristeia-Egyptians-A25-Mod/tree/main Link to Bronze Age Egyptians mod.

To me, auto-explore is fine so long as it's better to scout yourself.

I think the problem is with the elephants. An Indian elephants can defeat 5 champion swordsmen. This means elephants are incredibly cost effective. I think it would be historically inaccurate to do this.

https://code.wildfiregames.com/D1868?

Because part of 0 A.D. is "to reduce repeatitive tasks" and good micro would scout better still than an automated function.

Considering the other changes currently under discussion, I think adjustments to elephants and siege engines are premature. You are going to waste a lot of energy if you start designing solutions to problems that may not even exist any more by the time you implement them. (Or worse, you will create whole new sets of problems for yourself with too many degrees of freedom to know for sure what even caused them.) Better to take things slow and apply your work tactically.

Everybody can win from multiple cultures - also in gaming. The art works you guys do, are really impressive!

How about adding Death Damage effect to elephant? Surely fallen elephant would hurt nearby infantry. Make it non friendly fire as well.

I would like if will add some elephant techs like body armor - increase armor but reduce walk and run speed - or tower on back - for standing archers / javelins for feature in future - or elephant bridles for increase rotating speed if will reduce in default. but this techs should be very expensive.

If the problem is elephant and siege tower then just change those units.

I fully support this and even noted some of my ideas down but as someone already told me , Delenda Est already does some of these Melee infantry: Firstly, melee soldiers should only do hack damage just to make it simple. · Pikemen/spearmen: I want to differentiate between pike civs (Macedon and Successor Kingdoms) and spear civs (Greeks, Carthage). #Both should keep their anti cav bonus but note that being more tightly packed to attacking behind one another and their lower pierce armour make their counter pretty obvious. #Their rate of attack should stay the same. #Another thing, pike civs shouldn't have access to spearmen except for mercenaries and/or champions, the same applies for spear civs. #To further differentiate between civs, the Macedonian pike must have slightly better states than those of the successors to simulate the experience Macedonians had in phalanx warfare vs the native levies that the successors trained. Champions These for the most part are fine but like their citizen counterparts I propose that we change up champions. Take these 3 civs whose cavalry champions are spearmen: Macedon, Seleucids and Ptolemies and their hetairoi, kataphracktoi , agema cav respectively. We could make gameplay more interesting and appease the historical accuracy crowd at same time. The hetairoi could be the less armoured of the three but more powerfull attack wise, the kataphraktoi could be exactly the opposite (as their name implies) and the Ptolemaic agema cav could be a middle ground. Of course, this was just an example, all champs could be tweaked in a similar manner.

It is impossible to beat them at a fort, it used to be catapults would stop this fairly well because they can damage archers which stay still AND the fort. The main problem is not them hiding in one place however, the problem with them being the most maneuverable infantry unit lies when you try to avoid attacking the fort, and instead attack a weak place in their base. If you rightly recognize that fighting at the fort vs archers will cause death then you must try to attack somewhere else. The big problem is that archers can just follow you wherever you go without becoming more vulnerable because if you decide to attack once they are away from the fort, you are slower than the archers, so they can just go back to the fort. Archers only face 2 threats: other archers, siege towers, and cavalry. Cavalry and siege towers can be countered fairly well by archer civs and are very expensive endeavors, while archers can just gather resources without worrying about being vulnerable or out of position. The core problem with archers is that without cavalry: archers can hit you you cannot hit archers you cannot catch archers by chasing them Is it crazy to say that it should be possible to overextend or get flanked with archers? and it should not require cavalry to flank archers and beat them in this way?

Seleucids didn't use that many non-champion melee cav in history (I stand corrected). But for balancing purposes I think they deserve a spear cav as such a cavalry-heavy civ.

That's my point the "entity" doesn't exist, WFG is not an entity, it's a group of Volunteers. So in this case you should take it up with @user1 who manages the lobby. Not to artists doing, well art. I agree there needs to be more moderators, again, it's something @user1 should manage, he is the one that can grant such powers. Yes there needs to be a lot of things around here, senior programmers, more artists, more people experienced with balancing and of course people more involved into making the lobby a saner space. In the current state, if @user1 doesn't want to do it, nor anyone takes matters in their own hands and make a patch for it, it's unlikely for the team (or the entity, which is just a group of individuals) which is already stretched out to be able to do it.

Ooh, Music stuff. Here, some Australian style stuff. Warning: Rude words here. (From the country down south where we have discovered how to say "Go @#$% yourself" when we actually mean "I love you".) If you like any of it, please visit the bandcamp sites and buy something. Covid hit us harder than most developed Countries and our music scene is collapsing because of our incompetent GOVT. Every donation helps! Bread and Circuses, right? Music being circus. Let's start with some of the classics, Frenzal Rhomb, the One band which has been holding up the Australian Punk rock scene on it's (Camel-like) shoulders by itself from 1992. And they only have 1/1:30 songs too. And darn did they do a great job. ^One of their better songs. If you want to listen to all the music or even buy some, go here: https://frenzalrhomb.bandcamp.com/music Next: The Up-and-coming big guys from Tasmania (the little island south of Sydney in NSW AUS) Luca Brasi, if anyone's watched godfather i bet you know where they found that name. https://lucabrasipunkrock.bandcamp.com/music Next: The Bennies, A Ska Band from Melbourne. They Really love Drugs, Specifically Cannabis. Trust me, I've seen them do a lot of it with my own eyes (my family are friends with most of the bands here, so.... rigged advertisement? :D) They're like Frenzal Rhomb in that they do short-fast songs but they have lots of them, so it makes up for it. And having a joint between each song... You can imagine how high they get lol. https://thebennies.bandcamp.com/music Next: One of my personal Favorites, Amends. They are an Up-and-Coming band from Western Sydney (Blues). They also have a new album they released last month, which is very good too. They're a very light-core Punkrock band and this is their outgoing song from the album So far from Home. Also my favorite. There's also "Hells Bells" which is very unique and creative. Got a beat to it. You can find their stuff at https://amendsmusic.bandcamp.com/music Next, Corpus, 2 Brothers who have a mental disease, Clinical Depression i think? So they took up music and went Crazy with it to keep their mental problems down. darn they are intense live. https://corpuscorpuscorpus.bandcamp.com/music

Better safe than sorry and don't change this one. It is used by the simulation, AI and GUI.

https://github.com/microsoft/vscode/issues/87268

Also my documents, and appdata.

Completely delete everything when you uninstall it. Sometimes corrupted files might be left behind. If nothing works then you can try building from source.

Careful that's a double edged sword. Anyway I'm not opposed to it, I just don't have time to look into right now. If you now blender it should be pretty easy to do. 1. Create a rig with 2 bones. 2. Import a tree 2. 1 Use the bisect tool to cut the tree somewhere or use the existing subdivisions and press y to separate either the top or the bottom 2.2. add an armature modifier to the tree and link the rig you can also make the rig a parent of the mesh and use add empty weights 2.3 make sure the bottom of the tree and the top are assigned to the vertex groups 2.4 using the rig move the tree around so you can add two caps on both extremities 2.5 add the animation (make the top part fall using the top bone and make it bounce a little when hitting the ground. Note it will look weird on uneven terrain 2.6 export the mesh and the rig and replace the original dae, and export also another dae called something like tree_death or something ( you might be able to reuse it) 2.7 generate the skeleton xml file using my script or by hand 2.8 edit the actors to reference the new anims 2.9 edit the tree templates so that it requires to be killed before falling Or Edit the resource supply.js file so it supports death animations (more complex) when low on a resource (an example can be the health variants in health.js) Just rig the other trees with that animation. Note : Some trees have separate foliage you might have to make it disappear because it's not made to be seen from under.

I think copyright

Right. The Romulans could be some kind of late-game off-shoot civ from the Vulcans. Call it "Romulan Diaspora" or something. lmao Primary Vulcan melee weapon, lol:

You like Star Trek as well? I was almost unfriended by some Star Wars fans when they saw me watching Star Trek. I don't know why but they seem a bit too extreme for me. There is nothing wrong in liking any one or both of the shows.

Mute 6 month

Thanks, i am not serbian myself actually, i am just done with such people in general, so i dont care against whom it is directed. And i dont want people who just want to play 0 AD and actually belong to the targeted group be discouraged from doing so.

I am not Chinese but I still want to see them because there were arguably one of the most powerful civilisations back then and still is now. There was a story of Persian kings importing made in China arrows which penetrated Roman shields easily.

Ideally, they should be annoying, not efficient.