Leaderboard

The big problem is that balancing patches go through the same democratic process as other large patches. We have some patches with a small number of changes (status) that are a few months in the queue waiting to be checked. My suggestion is to create a small team balancing 3-5 players who listen to the community's suggestions, and based on the suggestions, talk and agree on the changes (vote if necessary). After the changes are agreed upon, the patch is built. Ideally, we need a moderator with the main role of balancing patches and gameplay that is more available for this type of patch. This moderator would not exercise his opinion on the patch, he would just test it for possible bugs and code breaks. There have been a lot of good suggestions on the forum over the years on how to work with civilizations, but the process of having to break those patches into dozens of little patches and all being discussed individually doesn't work well, because when you have ideas about changing a civilization, you think about global changes, one patch often depends on the other, and in the current form it's almost impossible to work.

This is precisely why I proposed working with a new schema, the kill your darlings concept applied to 0 AD. First, while the current alpha is an excellent template to work off of, it does not have to be followed to a T since the first civilisation that would be reworked could be balanced against itself. Things would complicate themselves with each successive rework, but the important thing is that there would be a coherent idea of how each civilisation would perform beyond just looking back at previous versions. At the same time since there would be the option to play the factions prior to the rework, players could still enjoy the variety of them without a grossly imbalanced game. This would allow for much more radical departures from the current formulae. Instead of champions always being available at the 3rd phase simply because, there could be some, like say the Spartans, who could train Spartans at the very outset. There could be new ways of collecting resources like Athenians collecting metal from olive fields.

If you look at the forum history, the people who were loudest about the a24 being imbalanced were the same people who said a24 was bland and uniform louder than anyone else and they did so from the very start. If anything, it was the casual players who received a24 best, but that also came to pass and I am not here trying to point fingers. And if you look at the ongoing conversations in the balancing community, most concern how we can (re)introduce aspects of the game that lost in a24 or have never been developed. For example, look at the threads @wowgetoffyourcellphone posted where he and I had several productive conversations that hopefully will materialize into new, balanced features that will make everyone happy. Saying "people who care about balance make the game boring" is wrong and unproductive. People who care about balance can also care about it being interesting, fun, and dynamic. People who care about balance simply want new features to be balanced in addition to being new.

Sorry you're right it's not a direct blame. Some team members are a bit afraid of the insults and the backlash we got after A24. So they wait for balancing people to come test those patches and suggest improvements, which is currently hard to put in place. so the features never move forward, or like in the case of acceleration, just go through without much consideration.

You give an extra load on the lobby, because you have to download stuff, and all the clients of the game needs to keep pinging it to know if there are updates. It's possible that it would introduce some security flaw where the person(s) currently having fun ddosing players (and sometimes it seems the server) might inject other fancy stuff. While assuming we have recurrent updates, a mod with team verification on modio with manual download seems much more secure and requires much less infrastructure. Secondary attacks, attack ground, mixed gender citizen soldiers, scouts... probably a lot more. I believe @Freagarach was working on something that could allow directional damage. And because I'm a jolly mood, the hans

Sorry, that feels like a no-true-scotsman fallacy to me. Yes, everyone wants both balance and new features, but the important distinction is which one you prefer when you can't have both. It seems like this community ends up picking balance over features every time. Perhaps a more useful framing of the problem is that the project's consensus view of what constitutes balance is too narrow for its own good. It's not enough that every strategy has a viable counter; that counter must be tuned to an exacting level of minimal surplus efficiency to preserve the soft counter character of the game. Moreover, you have to do this with consideration to every single civilization in the game. If a new feature makes any one of the game's dozen civilizations grossly over or underpowered then it is automatically not fit for purpose. And forget about trying to deliberately change the nature of any particular strategy or counter relationship, or majorly adjust the unit roster available to any civilization. The community has certain expectations about how things are supposed to look in 0 AD. The problem is, when combining all those constraints the only valid solution is gridlock. With counter margins so finely tuned, every single tiny simulation or stat difference triggers a cascade of unacceptable changes that must be fastidiously counteracted every patch, eating up development energy. Meanwhile, anyone trying to contribute new features has to run a gauntlet of predicting and adjusting for every balance implication across every combination of civs. It is simply not possible to innovate successfully in such an environment. To get out of this rut, this community needs to accept that 1. it is worth breaking things to add features, and 2. that a more bold, rough-strokes approach to balance and counter design will cause less balance problems while the game is in heavy development. Otherwise I think 0AD should accept that its game design has fully matured to its natural conclusion, and slap a beta number on the next update.

Just adding the official 0AD Newbie Rush edition of @Yekaterina's guide here; Download link below Massive thanks to @Yekaterina for allowing me to produce the official tie-in version, I've no doubt it's going to be popular and look forward to reading future, updated editions (not least because I'm so bad at the game myself and need all the help I can get!) From_nub_to_OP_Dec2021.pdf

Huge double episode today!

Implement DE's hero choice feature. Done.

IMHO this does not qualify as “Feature”. It's an embellishment at best. Features would be a new civilization, bataillons, acceleration, multiple attacks, building sockets (think settlements like Age of Mythology), Knockback, hero selection screen, attack ground, etc. Players who want A23B can still download it and or use nani's mod Disabling defeat sounds is just a a xml file to change. Because it's important there are a bit more sides. - Engine Side Pyrogenesis: Hardware Support, Performance, - Modding and Engine : Features (Both gameplay and hardware such as msaa, 4k support, 64 bits etc) 0 A.D: Empires Ascendant - MP Side: Playability, Balancing, Fun - SP Side: Depth, Diversity etc

This is a defeatist point of view that clearly relies on false assumptions. There are many examples of where new features had been proposed and adopted, so I don’t understand how you can say it’s not possible. I’ve even given you an example of how it can work out so someone doesn’t have to “run the gauntlet” alone. With the possible exception of turn rates, which have been tried several times and are still being tried, I am at a loss to think of any features that have actually be shouted down by anyone truly involved. Sure there are some people on the “balancing” side who think nothing should be introduced because it will wreck balance. They are wrong. Also wrong are the people in the “feature” side who forget that 0AD is a game. Like with most things, the right answer is usually somewhere in the middle

https://www.gimp.org/news/2021/12/21/gimp-2-10-30-released/@Stan`@Alexandermb@wackyserious@Mr.lie@Sundiata new version of gimp is released

Yes, this is the kind of mindset that would be great for every balancer to have, would even go as far as calling it a must-have.

I don't know what goes through my head sometimes

What if, randomly, everyone gets the same hero? Or only heroes of the same class.

3.1.3 version is out now, updated original download links (zip | pyromod). Added mod info buttons in the main menu and the in-game menu, explaining the changes that the mod brings. Mainly useful for people that use the in-game mod downloader because they will never see a read me otherwise. fixed. Mod credits have been integrated into the main menu credits.

Regicide is for quick games and it's fun and players can play a lot of games in the time taken for one conquest alone. and new players have a chance to win a game with a bit of luck. unlucky if you get Cleopatra of course, I am worried about players who get acharya Chanakya.

Personally the house walling concept is something I dislike; they take away the idea of using other structures for defence like... walls. I think that a soft way of punishing that sort of tactic would be to allow a town phase technology that allows infantry to set buildings on fire. If they are too close together, the fire would spread, but I digress. Walling with buildings is nothing new to RTS games. What we want to think about is ways of providing more nuance. Another thing blacksmith adjacency could do is award experience to units trained from nearby barracks. Honestly there are so many cool, thematic synergies that have remained unexplored that could add some much needed spice to the economic/base building side of the game.

Lol. This is why we can't have nice things.

I played the first round against Berhudar and congratulations to Berhudar who will play against the winner of game between @Player of 0AD and @ValihrAnt Berhudar vs. LetswaveaBook.zip

Please report any bugs you find here or on Github(preferably) and feedback is greatly appreciated! grapejuice_r12_a26.zipgrapejuice_r12_a26.pyromod

Hey guys, Kate here and right now I have a complete 0AD guide manual that teaches cosmic noobs how to become 1500+ players!! Please suggest improvements!! :)))) From nub to OP.docx

That's contradictory. If anything, 0 AD leans more towards beta than alpha.

Always welcome from me

not as an armor

Just worth noting that at least one of those (attack ground) was actually proposed by @BreakfastBurrito_007, who falls on the balancing side of things, and he and I squawk about it just about every chance we get. The balance vs. feature divide isn’t as binary as some people suggest. I get that there is some paralysis resulting from bad memories of a24’s release. I would submit that the process for a24 just failed. The people who drove a24 are largely uninvolved at this point and the proper concerns were raised at the time, but we’re just largely ignored or voted down by a minority that controlled the process. I really don’t think the entire MP community should be blamed for something like that, especially when many complaints of the MP community are the same ones being voiced here.

Not true. I have come across at least 3 other real women that aren't berhudar or me. Most of them don't tell you until you chat with them for a really long time. Also they don't have very obviously girl names.

Tried reworking the lorica segmentata, no spec maps yet.

That's what my mod was missing.

Hmm, I haven't seen many references like that for the Scythians.

Svn's system isn't really great

I like but, but same hero is tough because it requires everyone to be the same civ. Same class could work but it a little tricky because some hero’s are ele which most civs don’t have and then there are other hero’s that are something other civs don’t have, but I suppose you could unmount cav heroes or make other similar adjustments. And there is also the fact that some heroes of the same class type are very good while others are basically worthless after the first five minutes. this all goes back to how the game isn’t fully built yet and there are large swaths that need to be improved if a random game mode like nomad is ever going to pretend to be fair. With all that said, the easiest solution is also the most obvious here: let players chose their hero at the start

@wowgetoffyourcellphone @Genava55 would they have used quilted cloth, just like in the concept above?

what's the problem with branches?

And they would be the only thing you would change. And you only have to package the files you changed.

The civs' files are a bit spread out since it includes auras and other things. But if you take the simulation folder alone (with gaia and all the civs) it has only 4,22 MB of files with 8,24 MB of occupied disk space. Most of the size of the public folder comes from the Art folder (2,53 GB), Audio folder (177 MB) and the Maps folder (341 MB). The rest only weighs 31 MB. Overall, scripts and XML files are really light.

The game is a mod yes. However it extends far beyond just the 13 civs and is called “public” All fauna and flora assets are part of it. In my mind the civs should be split from the rest as they could be replaced by something else. Yeah it's possible. If it was split I believe it could be a bit smaller. It would be a fun experiment to see how much space the civs really take. Do note however you could just have an extra mod that just changes the stats that would be much smaller. You could just have three xml files in that mod Without branches and backporting non C++ changes it's not trivial no. Not with the current resources at my disposal at least.

Thanks @Stan`. I think i understand a few points of your reply, but not all of it. If possible, could you clarify a few things: 1 - It seems that the moddable part of 0AD is treated (in some ways) as a mod itself (called empires_ascendant) <-- is this correct? 2 - If 1 is true, then it means that, much like mods, this one could be changed more frequently, and updated on mod.io 3 - Empires_ascendant is a rather large mod (a few gigabytes in fact) and the only way to change parts of it would be to download and replace the entire thing (can't just change a few files) 4 - " We can't maintain the current version and the next one at the same time. " <--> If i'm understanding this corrently, it means that current versions of 0AD in phabricator (A26) have new features (like acceleration) that changes the game and most of it's .xml files. This way, patches for A25 couldn't be easily tested in Phab without messing with A26 stuff. Therefore it would be necessary to have two projects in Phab, one for A26 and one for A25, and that is just not feasible. If that is the case, then can't we test tentative patches as a simple mod and when eveything is set, officialy transmit them to the Empires_Ascendant "mod". It sounds a little vague because i don't have enough knowledge to know what is possible and what isn't, but if we can use a program, like the installer, to officialy replace files in Empires_Ascedant, it would make things simpler. This way, the workflow would be something like this: Tentative patch A25.01 --> as a simple mod (or .pyromod) file, like any other mods. Balance team downloads the mod, tests it and have discussions. - If the changes are insufficient, a new mod (A25.02) is created and the process is repeated) -If the changes are accepted then it can be implemented. After a final version is approved, an official patch (or something) can be downloaded to replace the original files in the Empires_Ascendant mod for the new ones, but only those that were changed (like a copy and replace). ======================================================= I don't know if i got everything right or if this is even realistic, but if possible, it might be close to a good solution to this problem.

Well ideally the empires_acendant mod could evolve at it's own pace. It could be available on mod.io and provide day to day fixes. Sadly, this requires an effort the team is not able to provide. We can't maintain the current version and the next one at the same time.

I agree on this plan for reworking civs one by one, this is my vision as well. I think all these good intentions could get into the game easier if there was a shorter term balancing calendar of the game, independent on the engine upgrades and the main releases.

This is precisely why I would propose a systematic approach to updating civilisations one by one. There would be time to forge a clear identity to how they would work, yet at the same time since it would just be that civilisation, players would be able to see how matchups with it and other factions would function. Choices would be deliberate, not either dogmatically following the whims of the meta or taking in every shiny idea.. That said, I see the balancing advisors to be have a valid place here, noting where things are broken and noting where fixes could be made. At the moment the economies for civilisations run fairly similar to each other, which I find unfortunate, especially since a large amount of a players concentration has to be dedicated to it. It also can be fun to build aesthetically nice cities in game, but there are no rewards to consider with building placement. What if there was one faction that had reduced training time to barracks placed next to blacksmiths? The Romans could also have their Temple of Vesta offer increased gathering speed to nearby women. Maybe so, but the point is still valid. There is no clear documentation of where the team wishes to take the civilisations from a design perspective (There are documents on each civilisations design, but those seem to have been left by the wayside.), and this would perhaps fix that apparent issue.

This is the worst kind of mindset for a balancer to have imo. And i'd still say that A23 balance was superior and the civs were more unique.

@wowgetoffyourcellphone wackyserious/0adtextures (github.com)

Unique features = new imbalances

https://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/1907

Lol that's not true. There are so many things that are not getting in the game for the fear that people will find it "unbalanced" and start yelling. Every decision that touches the gameplay is looked on from the angle of "what do the multiplayer think". The problem is that most devs play the game not super competitively, but just casually, so no one I know of claims to be an expert for balancing. Which is why there is an extra balancing forum now.

LOL. Forum shows spoilers during loading and hides them after loading. I already know the winner

Here's a wip @wowgetoffyourcellphone for the headgear, the I think the Persian crown prop can be modified, then add some Italian feather crest props on top of it?