Leaderboard

Massive war going on, dude in the down-left corner: "eyy im finna build a house over there"

Visual indicator when unsetting rally-points Commit number: rP14462 - Add visual indicator when unsetting rally-points (31/Dec/13) Closed ticket: #2117 - [PATCH] Add visual indicator for setting and unsetting rally-points (8/Sep/13) Rally point Add: ctrl+right-click Remove: right-click fscaleOUTPUT.mp4

Hi i'm Vrayer on the loby, Ali70 quit without resigning A SECOND TIME after few games where he resign normaly... .... @user1 Cheers commands.txt

In the texture file is fine. Extra props are extra draw calls.

IIRC relics are spawned near gaia entities on the map. I read from your post, there are no gaia ents. So then the relic code will error saying it can't find a spawnpoint. Maybe a solution would be to add some triggerpoints on the map (these are invisible for the player). Would need to test if that really works.

Carthaginian Standard Bearer (might be used for Battalions, if @Freagarach makes them possible. ). A couple of potential positions. Right flank or center.

@wackyserious Ateas

My thoughts: I like git; (Bit controversial, but) I also like Phabricator (and, despite its flaws, arcanist!) (So I'd like to see consideration of migrating across to Phorge - once the Phorge team release a guide as to how to do that!) I'd like to see the repository split to differentiate between the engine and the game; I'd like to see binaries off-loaded via git-lfs or some other suitable tool; I'd like to for us to stop committing Windows-only binaries into the repository, but make them available through other means for those unable (or unwilling) to build themselves: The same process could potentially be used to provide "nightly" builds for macOS and some Linux distros as well; (On a related note, I'd also like to see a build script for Windows like the one we have for macOS - e.g. it also fetches and builds the libraries/dependencies. But that's for another thread.) We should continue to be self-hosted where possible;

@s0600204< Thanks for chiming in! How do you feel about git, gitlab, splitting repos, basically the things mentioned in the thread?

In the initial flurry of interest from/discussion between various concerned parties to continue Phabricator in some form, one user proposed dropping support for subversion and mercurial (so as to permit pushing directly to a phabricator-managed git repo with "git push" instead of having to use arcanist). There was some push back from others about losing mercurial support but not a single voice against the proposed loss of support for subversion. (Link to the discussion - requires login.) Since the fork ("Phorge") has established itself, the only mention to subversion that I can find (in the publicly/guest accessible bits, anyway) is in the list of "projects" for the various components of Phorge. As you might note - a project hasn't been created for subversion, although it is in the list. According to the comments below the list, projects will be created on a "as-needed" basis. So it looks like there's no plan to drop subversion support... but also no-one has stepped forward to express an interest in maintaining it either. (Unlike mercurial, who does have someone.)

Crossbowmen vs rams? Good luck with that xD

New version coming up! Changes: Banned canopies, so that trees cannot hide buildings or units. Changed all berry and apple tree to pink so that you cannot possibly miss them. Cleaned up unplayable biomes like India and Nubia. Huge changes to trees appearances. Made bushes identical to trees so that no more annoying bushes in India New Temperate: New Nubia: New India: It will lag less because each tree has 2 or 3 less components to render, making India a playable biome @nani This is still based on your autociv. I know this looks ghastly but it is worth it for the visibility improvement! Next step: remove details on the ground, e.g. grass, small bushes, stones and colour the entire floor to the same colour within each biome.

I think the main issue with that, was that it was originally only going to give you different heroes and champions, and that was it. If it were to be designed today, I think the choice would be at the beginning. Leaving it until City Phase makes the "Hellenes" for example feel very generic, until you pick "Macedonians" in City phase and get Pikeman and Spear Cav champions. You lose out on all the Macedonian flavor in the early phases. No Thessalians. No Hypaspist champions. No Thracians. No unique architectural elements. No unique techs (until the very end). It wasn't a bad idea for its time, but we know so much more now about how these factions were unique (specifically militarily, when talking about the Greek civs). The original design had no Seleucids and their awesome War Elephants. The original design had no Ptolemaic Egyptians with their awesome architecture and mix of ethnicities. I could see something where you choose your "Civilization" in game setup. So, "Greeks" for example or "Successor States" or "Romans" or "Celts" or "Nomads", and then when the match starts you get a popup where you choose the "Faction" from that Civilization. So, Greeks -> Athenians, Spartans, Thebans. Successor States -> Macedonians, Seleucids, Ptolemies. Romans -> Republic, Principate, Dominate. Celts -> Gauls, Britons, Celtiberians. Nomads -> Scythians, Xiongnu, Huns. That way, your enemies know what Civilization you chose, but not which Faction until they scout you.

Yeah that was the original plan before the split from Celt to Briton/Gaul and Hele to Athen/Mace/Spart and Sele/Ptol it was a nice plan, although it could have lead to a very complex tech tree (which depending on what you like is a blessing or a curse)

There was also an idea floating around sometime on this forum to allow for civ branching with phases. You start as Mycenaean, and get more specific with phases or something. I believe the actual example was the Roman Kingdom, Roman Republic and the Roman Empire. The problem is that you can't easily get balanced linear progression for all civs, but maybe that's not a problem.

The theme isn't rome-centric. The main consideration is being notable during the Bronze Age I guess. Narrowing that down to empires with roads that led to Rome cuts out a whole portion of ancient history. Disclaimer, I am not literally using the Rome metaphor. The point being that the current "theme" is the classic sets of civilizations around the Mediterranean and their outreach.

The story of Seleucus is in my list of screenplay ideas. Han Chinese are a very large and extremely influential civilization. Scythians and Xiongnu are civilizations that span the breadth of Asia and link East with West. They'd also add all-new gameplay possibilities. Honestly, Scythians and Xiongnu would probably be refreshing to a lot of people (even if hard to balance; but again, there's no rule to state you'd have to allow them in your rated multiplayer matches [we can can include a Random/Settle Civilizations option that excludes nomads, see:DE]; also, we could surprise ourselves and actually balance them fairly well, we don't know yet). That's fine. I just think 1 or more new civs are eventually going to be added. You'll probably enjoy them even if they don't fit your theme*. * Civs like Zapotecs and Maya and Olmecs (Mesoamericans, essentially) don't fit at all, we can agree on that. I still would like to see them as some kind of "official expansion" or mod in the download section eventually (perhaps as part of an Alpha release; a kind of "content" pack released in parallel).

I think @psypherium made a good point about that in his video by saying inclusion wouldn't matter if we didn't have any assets for the hans or any of the other civs. We are not considering the yayoi Japan for inclusion because there are barely any assets, Lordgood never released the buildings. Han, Xiongnu, Zapotecs, Scythians have their own assets which make them eligible. The Kushites got in the game that way. In other words we are stripping potential fun away by not including a civilization that's probably more complete than a few of the 13 civs when they got in the game.

All the power. They fought against Seleucus the first and they are an important reason elephants entered the battlefield of the era. Honestly, the story of Seleucus the first is the best story of any greek general of the time and possible all time. Mauryas definitely deserve to be in for that alone. Maybe we then need a fation that actually did matter? Or settle on that we can't agree on this one.

Mauryas ended who? Kushites what? Spartans are largely a backwater, insular city state, but they're included because they are famous and fun and add diversity. Mauryas included because they are awesome and add diversity, but had zero contact with Rome. Kushites had a few minor border wars with Rome, but are included to add fun and diversity to the civ roster. Han could be included because "If the Chinese and Romans ever fought, who would win?!?!" is a super common what-if scenario people talk about. Plus they add diversity to the roster and the opportunity for new gameplay.

Indeed! If volunteer developers enjoy building new civs instead of doing other things, more power to them!

No need for tricks. You can add a flag in the mod.json to remove the check. In theory civs are picked before loading so it *might* work.

Now I am wondering. If I make a mod and use the autociv trick for making mod users compatible with non mod users. Then I could host a game and my mod could allow such a random civ grouping, while not all participants in the game room have that mod. Would that give the intended result of drawing a random civ out of a group?

One does have to keep in mind that the pathfinding changes done in the previous alpha ("unit pushing") can't and thus would not be integrated in such a mod (since it meant engine changes). So by the end of the day, all the work making and testing such a mod would be a compleat waste.

We need the random/group civ options from delenda EST, so that we can ban certain civs with going for random. For example, random except Iberian. Or random greek civ

Honestly, I've seen a lot of (well-meaning, but ignorant) comments like: They shouldn't spend time on new civs, they should spend time fixing lag (or insert the commenter's pet peeve)! Ignorant in a sense that generally the people who work on civs aren't the ones who are going to fix lag or networking issues. I think there are a minority of multiplayer players who would prefer fewer civs for balance-sake. Single player players, in general, and I think a plurality or majority of multiplayer players appreciate greater content, which may often include new civs. I'm using a lot of weasel words because hard data is difficult to come by. And even if a player doesn't want new civs, there's no rule telling them they have to play those civs or even allow them in their multiplayer matches.

I think that is indeed part of the problem.

This is partially because balancing changes usually die on phabricator if it's not already accepted here. However, most balancing changes proposed here or as patches are subjective opinions. If you provide objective values with the changes, the likelihood of it being committed goes up exponentially. Rather than saying slinger attack rate is too high, maybe provide a chart of DPS or something so it's obvious that slingers attack rate is indeed too high. If I was committing stuff, the latter would give me a whole lot more confidence to actually make the change. If something is supposedly overpowered, there would be numbers to quantify that. It's a whole lot more work, but we only need so much advisers, we need more contributors. For the more savvy, run nonvisual Petra tests on the same seed and match up civs maybe. Or hell, integrate such tests on CI too if they offer meaningful insights. As is, forum balance proposals are not doing anyone much good as they don't go anywhere far.

frankly this is the first comment against inclusion of new civs that I see. I agree that testing is possible and sometimes happens, even as things are now. I believe, but maybe I'm alone, that few testers can't be as good as many testers. For example, what I see is that most of the ones that tested a24 were rushers, that mean that inside that bubble the game was probably fine. When the game was then tried by the community, turtling and archer spam were discovered in a week after the release. Well this is easier. It was done even recently (I think for a24) but the last week before release. Still it looks strange to me, but I'm not a dev, that creating new installers and ask everyone to download is easier to make a "gameplay mod" as the one they were referring to in this post. Again, it is not a problem of me not being able to install svn. It costs too much effort to the average "competitive" player in the lobby. If the effort is similar to the one needed to install autociv, maybe more people will do it. The point is, sure balancing can be done this way. But if it's easier, more people will help and test. The more they are, the better it would be. What do you mean?

I disagree here. Hoplite tradition was not tested a lot and it was added to the game, so I think this point is not true either. You can just put a post on the gameplay forum and see if you get support. For example, I suggested affordable kushite pyramids in p1, and vali made a patch for that. If you do a good suggestion, then you can find people(like me) that can be convinced to make a patch. So it is not so difficult. What the balancing team lacks, is mainly one thing: Action. There was also some testing for A25. My personal experience was that without autocivs hotkeys, it was difficult to judge.

I agree. Getting into installing SVN, Trac and Phab, can be frustrating, intimidating and time consuming. It's quite a bump you must get over before you can actually try contributing or feeling like you're actually helping (<- of which i'm often not so sure of myself).

Still does IMHO.

Double that Capturing did wreak havoc

Indeed. A24 had more than double the changes than a more "regular" alpha, precisely because it had more than double the development period. Imagine the outcry some of the current players would have over the changes from Alpha to Alpha in the early days. lol. Each Alpha adding a slew of new features, new bugs, random stats changes, and entirely new civs! The horror.

It wasn't luck. A24 tried to do a lot of stuff. In hindsight, a lot of people have summed up a24's mistakes by saying something to the effect of "in a23, slingers were too strong and archers were too weak, so a24 just should've lessened the dmg of slingers and increased the dmg of archers." That obviously sounds reasonable. But rather than taking that simple approach, a24 tried to do a lot of complicated changes. Some of these changes, like pathfinding, projectile speeds, and rotation times are massive changes with effects that seep into every aspect of the game and ripple through unexpected areas. When you try to change that much all at once there are a lot of unintended and unexpected changes. It's no surprise that the full effect of all these changes wasn't appreciated during development. In comparison, a25 was not as ambitious. It changed relatively few things and the changes that occured to the bigger things, like rotation speed, were far more modest. In short, the changes were more modest, humble and incremental. As a result, their impact was more ascertainable during development. There is a reason to limit these massive changes that impact everything--because it makes balancing possible. If you try to change everything all at once then you're basically making a new game with each alpha instead of adjusting an old game to keep up with current needs. With that said, basically all of the feature changes that are being discussed here (and elsewhere) aren't of the type that would have rippling impacts.

I personally don't think something needs to be 100% accurate before it's added. None of the current civs were 100% perfect when they were added by any means. But I suppose if there are niggling issues that bother some folks about the civ, it's okay to address them first. Just know that more issues will arise once they are added, and they will make the current release blockers look trivial. That's how every civ release has been.

What is balance and what is not can be a fine line. It feels at the moment that the weight is far too conservative, but I could easily see it swinging the other way. For what it's worth, yes there was a scathing criticism for issues, but I think that in part, that has to be expected with any change. Ideally speaking those should not be taken personally, but that's asking the impossible. Again this is why I think that when making changes that could both add colour to each faction, transparency is key, especially if there will be sweeping overhauls. Likewise, since the work would focus on just one faction at a time, there could be a large amount of balance testing focussed on just it alone.

Just need to motivate @Alexandermb he hasn't answered me back yet. But it's christmas so...

Hence, this thread. I think part of Alistair's point in his rant video is that each Alpha will have a "flavor," based on the changing balance, changing meta, changing features, no matter what, and that's fine as long as new stuff is added and the game's design moves forward. Also, for "Balancers", isn't it fun to balance new things? Sure, you don't want an Alpha to come along and throw everything into complete chaos, but new civs and features to balance should be welcomed by someone who enjoys balancing these things, right?

Balance is most certainly not the reason Han chinese have not yet been added to the main game. I myself asked/advocated multiple times in the irc-dev channel for their inclusion, and it looks like the reason(s) they have not been added is something else, although I don't know (if I learned) the exact reason(s) And really, the development power is quite low at the moment. There are about 2 developpers coding, and 2 more reviewing, all in their free time, I don't feel like this will ever get much done in the grand scheme of things.

Have to agree I would vote to just include every civ from DE that is over 80 percent done. Then do balancing by grouping civs.

I'll add it further. Why should balance team have any say in what features get removed from the gameplay? IMO, it shouldn't. Balancing should be about finding the underdog civs and finding ways to improve them while finding the overpowering civs and either bringing all others to their level or bringing everyone a notch down using stats not features (e.g., not removing Mauryas worker elephant but adding cards to some civs). For example, slingers vs bows vs skrimishers and bringing everything in line with regards to usefulness. Another example is champions. Additionally, Mercs and usefulness of heroes. Balance should encompass: Unit balancing (timings, stats) Structure balancing (timings, stats) Upgrades (timings, time cost) Hero bonus stats What structures build what units (within reason) E.g., Delenda Est is completely different in how Carthage works with Mercs but also similar. It's weirdly cool and more developed IMO. (note: to me this is both a balance and feature change). Civ bonuses and stats (as long as within spirit of civ) Balance should provide suggestions/ideas for (things that won't necessarily get added, but could be nice): Ideas on new units. Ideas on how a civs can work differently (e.g., Ptol/Scythians/Han)

I have played 0 AD since mid A23. And I personally feel that there has been to much focus on balance and not enough on actual game improvement. Specifically I am referring to things that make civilizations feel and play uniquely. A24 was a net loss of Civ features for something that already felt like a full fledged game with differentiated civs, it just needed a little balancing to ranged siege and slingers and it would be fine. Then further differentiation of civs could have been done to flesh things out. A25 while nice is still just A24, now with a skirmisher meta, extra blacksmith goodies and better pathfinding. I really hope A26 returns some of the sparkle from A23.

I said leans towards, not is You probably won't find an alpha thats more playable than 0AD, even plenty beta's get released in worst states and probably even fully released games. Besides adding new broken and unbalanced features/updates is something that released tripple A games do all the time. Not saying that should be the standard but it's just for comparison. The meaning of "released", "alpha" and "beta" definitely shifted alot with early access being a popular thing to do nowadays.

Right. IMHO, making compatibility-breaking changes is definitely Alpha, not Beta.

Question for discussion: Why should the "Balance Team" have any say in what features get added to the game? Isn't it their duty to balance the features the team decide to add? That's not to say Balance team members can't participate in gameplay feature discussions. But those are two different roles. You can't come into a gameplay feature discussion and then derail it with constant balance concerns. You have to go into a feature discussion with a mind toward expanding the game's features in good faith. My latest discussions on Phabricator have had a few mentions of balance, but all-in-all have been a fruitful discussion about making the gameplay feature work. The exact statistics can always be decided later through gameplay experience and with input from Balancers. Again, Features and Balance are linked in the end, but they are 2 different things. You add the former, then try to do the latter. If it can't be balanced, then the feature can be removed, but you can't know a feature's balance until it's tried.

Not if we consider the fact that we (mostly I am guilty) break compatibility quite often. ^^'

(in professional video game development, binary assets are committed along with scripts to the same repository. It's standard procedure and the tools are specifically designed to handle that. Plastic or Perforce are pretty expensive though. There is a consideration that most professional video games are also not as code heavy as they don't usually develop engines.)

hi guys (sa) first of all sory for my english . ı make mistakes guys ı think team maches should be ranking . like cs go or leage of legends because some people dont care tg ,when they are lose the game they are closing game and we stay 4 v3 or some people have high rate and never play 1 v1 so ı wish ranking team game what do you think about this topic guys