Leaderboard

Everything is underrated when @Player of 0AD plays it. @Player of 0AD what is worst civ in your opinion then?

I think moving (most) heroes to the CC would integrate them a little bit more into the game. I know it's a simple change, moving them from the fortress to the CC, but I'm thinking about the psychology of the player, seeing the Hero there in the training panel from the outset, instead of 15 mins later when they build a fortress. Honestly, I'd really push for something along the lines of DE's hero choices, but I know that's too radical (!!!) for the current crop of stakeholders. You almost need a whole new set of players and developers in order to propose significant improvements, because all of the current stakeholders are so wed to the status quo. Don't say I'm wrong, when even simple changes are controversial.

That is indeed great if the initial civilisations are random. However, if the players chose their civilisations then you can simply remember who picked what. I like this idea, it will help with specs' discussions and analysis.

good point. I think we can and should take inspiration from game-mechanics of other games such as those, but we should not just port them over just because those games are more popular. For example, "arson" attack mechanic from aoe3 and 4.

Snipe the resign button : P No, you can actually spam traditional hoplites and super cheap jav mercs.

this is incorrect. There are very often rushes in dark age (p1).

I'll try to do this in my mod, you can try it then.

No I have to assume the worst from players. I mean DDOS, rating fakery, insults, etc. So when we add a potentially annoying feature I have to take it into account.

I want to hate the idea of a demilitarized P1, but to be honest in this game it might work. 0 AD and the games that inspired it have an unusually well developed base-builder gameplay loop--and one that could be strengthened even further by using auras and build restrictions to deepen the challenge of optimal building placement. It might be enough to carry game for 5-10 minutes even without any combat or immediate threat of serious attack. (I might even argue AoE2 already operates within this paradigm, and it is the most popular entry in the entire ancient warfare genre.) Players would still need to prepare for the start of hostilities in P2, which I suspect would impose its own version of the boom-rush-turtle strategy counter cycle. If I were redesigning the game to support this kind of design, this is what I would do: Reduce the CC territory radius and increase the territory radii of houses, towers, and military buildings. This enables players to actively position these structures to expand and shape their territory in P1 onward as part of an overall strategy, rather than just working with what they are given by their starting CC. Greatly reduce the max number of units who can harvest from metal, stone, trees, and food sources at the same time. This would require players to cultivate multiple simultaneous resource extraction operations, rather than just piling all their economy onto one or two good sources. Allow farmsteads and storehouses to be built in neutral territory, enabling map generation that requires players to actually venture out beyond the safety of the CC to find some resources, rather than automatically getting everything they need in their starting base. Houses get a 30-to-50-radius aura that boosts resource harvesting speed, increases build rates, and slowly regenerates hp of friendly units in its area of effect. This adds an incentive to annex productive resource operations into your territory and build them up into little town like settlements, instead of only using houses for a wall around your CC. It also adds a little defensive bonus, since you are no longer relying so heavily on the CC for protection. Sentry and Defense Towers get a 30-to-50-radius aura that increases movement speed of friendly units in its area of effect. Like the house aura, this is another incentive to annex and further build up useful territory, and a 2-for-1 defensive boost to compensate for reduced protection from the CC. Fields cannot be built within 40 m of other Fields or P2+ buildings (and vice versa). One again the idea is to spread out production and force the players to think harder about base layout. This restriction forces the creation of separate farming and military/commercial districts. (The idea could be further developed by restricting the proximity of civil and military P2+ buildings from each other.)

At least now it's revamped.

Only the default map really matters, haven't seen playing anyone anything beside acropolis bay first, which also means basically any review will be done using that map.

One of the most challenging and fun aspects of 0ad is the boom/rush battles that happen in p1. These are very influential on game outcome and have many different strategies variables and levels of preparedness to keep track of. I would be very sad to see p1 be dedicated to booming alone. @AIEND do you play in multiplayer? or vs AI?

I want to add javelins and bows to civilians, but want ranged attacks to only target wild animals, what tag do I need to add to the RestrictedClasses line to achieve this?

I have found the reason. #5179 - .DELETED folders are not taken into account when mods are packaged (23/May/18) @Stan` wrote #5179#comment:7 Could it be that you have unzipped the public.zip and boonGUI is still packaged ? Try to unzip boonGUI as well.

Hard to say... Maybe the Persians or the SeLoseCids...

If we decouple the soldiers from the main labor, it means that the cost of these soldiers is easier to adjust. Different types of soldiers can require different types and quantities of resources according to their strength and use. For example, we can enhance the archer and improve the Its food cost, added to the metal cost, allows a group of archers to be evenly matched with javelinmen with the same amount of resources but a larger number.

yes that makes sense. Thats why I said it was "realistic" feedback. I do think a future civ could have less civic buildings restricted to their territory as a civ bonus. That would be cool. Actually, I would not be surprised if I saw something like that. AOE4 is pretty bad by the looks of things. They basically removed skill from the game, only keeping strategy. Between the two, I would consider 0AD the better game which features are this bad?

2. A different way to achieve the same effect... Implementing this stuff would require a complete rework of the map pool anyway. So I think the easier solution is just to have the same amount of resources divided between more, smaller resource nodes, rather than try to adjust dozens of price and income rate stats; but reasonable minds may differ. 3. Last I experimented with these things (alpha 23), unrooted buildings can be placed in unclaimed territory, and even have their own territory field. They just don't count as controlled territory for the purpose of building other structures, and they bleed control over to gaia at a rate controlled by their territory decay stat---basically the same as what happens to all the buildings in a town when the CC is destroyed. For relatively inconsequential buildings like storehouses & farmsteads one might just want to disable their decay. Or they could be garrison-able in order to keep control always topped up. 4. I think the performance fears about auras are overblown in this specific case. The aura projectors under discussion do not move, which should allow for certain (hopefully already implemented) optimizations. Additionally since this whole discussion is about hypothetical design overhauls, let's recognize that 0 AD suffers from a severe misalignment between its engine's technical capabilities, its design intentions, and its realized simulation parameters. A lot of resources are being wasted right now simulating units that don't need to exist. Rather than simulating dozens of individual trees in a patch of forest, why not bundle them together as one entity? Why simulate the lives of hundreds of individual soldiers in combat that has no meaningful collision or individual unit maneuvering, instead of simulating at the squad or battalion level where all the gameplay is actually taking place? Do this and we could easy have 8 player games with dozens of active auras and still no CPU lag. 5. Why towers? i. Watch-towers are an easy way of representing the forceful hand of civil order and public works that enables efficient logistics. Basically they are stand-ins for roads and law-enforcement patrols. ii. Players would want to build towers anyway for protection. Giving them some secondary benefits makes it a little less ruinous when someone invest into turtling and the opponent booms. 6. Universal chronic difficulty placing buildings sounds like a map design problem. And if non-chronic it's just a skill gap that can be filled by study and practice. We know this kind of gameplay can be fun because there are very popular genres of puzzle games that consists entirely of this sort of planning and optimization challenge. But anyway, don't misunderstand! I'm not suggesting that this is the way that 0 AD should be! It's not going to happen; and even if by some act of insane developer collusion it did, the established player base would not accept it. I'm just speculating that the possibility exists within the explorable design space and within the capabilities of the engine. At best I can hope maybe someone with ambitions of making their own spin off game or mod sees such ideas and gets inspired! But these are still within (or just outside) the starting CC's territory radius. It's better than nothing I'll admit, but I stand firm that creative resource exploitation doesn't begin until players get the P2 territory multiplier and the option to build secondary CCs. Not to be mean about it, but even as the lesser siblings of AoE2, those games have large, passionate, and active global fan bases. 0 AD is only relevant to FOSS enthusiasts. If you doubt that, see if you can find any articles by real games journalists suggesting "why not try 0 AD instead of AoE4". Part of the reason for that popularity gap is this project's obsession with reinventing square wheels. It is good to try new things and push innovation, but when it becomes indisputable that those innovations are objectively worse than the proven design (like if they fracture the community or cause persistent balance problems), it's time to swallow one's pride and get on the bandwagon.

You can progress economically with the res that starts in p1, but players already do venture away from their base for metal mines, extra berries, hunt and sometimes a preferred woodline. Restrictions 1,2, and 6 would do nothing but bring frustration to building the base. I could not image playing with these artificial and uncomfortable rules. The other things such as auras sound nice but I would be worried about having too many auras as I think I heard this contributes to performance issues. There are frequently mercenary rushes, border skirmishes, cavalry harassment, and the occasional all out attack in p2. P2 does have way to take out buildings, but no siege. Keep in mind that destroying the cc is not the only way to deal damage. This game is, in fact, not AoE3 and not Age of Mythology. I can't understand why you want to make 0ad into those games.

It's definitely bottom 2-3. At least in TGs. Maybe it is better in 1v1s? Once iphricates is sniped what to do next?

no I mean for spec only. Like to show other specs. It would not be visible to players ofc. Sorry I wasn't clear!

I'm afraid I don't have the funds for that . Until then, perhaps it would be best if a mod could be made so that 0AD players could gauge the effect of these changes.

I've never played those games, so I can't judge for them. However, in the case of 0AD, there is already a rush to phase up, and I think this proposal would make that even more the default. If people want that, it could be implemented. For myself, however, it doesn't sound like it would make the game more enjoyable. If 0AD has a different design than other RTSs, I don't necessarily think that it means that 0AD's design is inferior, I think it makes 0AD more interesting.

Higher combat effectiveness or indispensable battlefield roles are the characteristics of being a mercenary. If you add the ability to cut wood and build buildings to him, it will make him featureless, which means that the design of the mercenary failed from the beginning. Well, the mercenaries of the imperial era will not be indistinguishable because they are incapable of labor like ordinary soldiers. And it must be pointed out that the reason why mercenaries are cheap is that under the current 0AD resource system, citizen soldiers basically do not consume metals, and metals have largely become idle resources, and mercenaries that only consume metals have no resource conflicts. In Age of Empires 3, players will not feel that mercenaries are cheap, because ordinary soldiers also consume gold, mercenaries are equivalent to replacing food costs with gold, and gold is a more scarce and versatile resource. Even though a mercenary might only have 70 gold, and the average soldier might need 20 gold and 90 food, players would think that 50 gold is more expensive than 90 food because they have already spent a lot of gold on other uses.

that generally done by having separate template just with the required technology like for women in houses

Wrong... For example dakeyras, Philiptheswaggerless and me like them. Most underrated civ ever xD

Bersaglieri.

cavalry mercenaries are getting more expensive in the next alpha. In general, mercenaries' low price is balanced from a military standpoint and carrying the assumption that mercenaries can not add to the economy of a player. If mercenaries costed the exact same as citizen soldiers and could gather, they would have no unique qualities left. Mercenaries cost the way they do because they fill a particular gameplay niche that other units do not. This is why "unifying" everything and "simplifying" everything is not always good. You complain a lot about the design of the game but you seem to have no idea why any design or balance choices are made.

I've never heard anyone complain about unit diversity and their resource gathering status in 0ad.

Its better than the Athens team bonus in 0ad

this is not a problem. In fact, it is part of what makes the game fun.

I think the soldiers themselves also need to be unified, such as making citizen soldiers, mercenaries, and champions all able to cut wood and build buildings.

The current game shows that attempts to completely replace dedicated laborers with citizen soldiers were unsuccessful, and the original intent was to integrate civilians and soldiers into citizen soldiers, moving from two units to one. But what about the results now? Now there are women who farm, civic infantry who log wood, mine metal and stone, civic cavalry who hunt, mercenary infantry who can build buildings but can't gather resources, mercenary cavalry and champions who can 't gather resources or build buildings.

in times of peace it is fine, being a civilian a citizen and in times of war specializing soldiers.

Just play with the ceasefire option? 10 minutes for example No. The game has already some diversity: Some soldiers cannot gather metal and stone (cavalry, mercenaries, champions) - this makes the game more interesting. The citizen soldier conception is big fun to play

@Stan` Should the name of A26 be already written in its wiki page or not yet? The wiki is completely updated up to r27103, which is (right now) the last commit. I'll try to keep an eye on the new commits each couple of days or so.

I personally much prefer AOE3 over 2, mainly because 2 is really chaotic and the isometric view is horrible imo. The combat feels much nicer in 3 aswell. But yes, it was a small ripple compared to AOE2.

@Fabius Persians also have a unique building with an extra benefit.

Here is a workaround: xattr -cr /Applications/0\ A.D..app Running the above command after dragging the app to Applications should make it run. Still trying to investigate the root cause of the issue.

So you're saying it won't work here? I was socialized in forums with rules (off topic, full quotes...*) and actual enforcement, here it is bordering on non-moderation. This thread is all over the place; not that I don't like the p0 idea, but this thread was supposed to be about something else. *Backseat moderation was also frowned upon. I'll show myself out.

He lost his account he need help about: 1 -if you can only create an account pro user because it does not let him create another, because the one he had he doesn't remember the password and user, 2- is there any way that can be recovered or that some admintrador can help. somehow. I One comment before I go, you should put some form of recovery within the game password etc by email.

@user1 Puede ayudarte. Si se puede crear otras, pero no recuerdo cada cuánto.

The game is not slow, 12 minute third phase is hyper fast, there is no reason to do anything in second phase beyond prepping for third phase. Average games last half an hour if you lucky. less than five minutes if you really unlucky and get rushed.

This requires changing the current citizen-soldier system, adding citizens of both genders, and allowing them to complete the collection of various resources. Player P1 cannot train any soldiers. In this stage, there should be no fighting between players, all they have to do is to accumulate enough buildings and populations to prepare for the next stage to fight. This is not to say that the setting of citizens-soldiers is completely abolished, but I think at least soldiers should no longer be able to collect metals and stones. Fighting should be the main work of soldiers, and collecting materials should only be a sideline.

You know what it's like to fight in P1? ——Like two kindergarten children fighting boxing, their bodies have not grown, their strength is not strong enough, and their winning or losing is not interesting. You still have a lot of technologies that you haven't researched, a lot of powerful units have not been unlocked, there is still a lot of balance left in the population cap, and the map is huge. You haven't explored and built new towns yet. What's more problematic is that in P2, the scale of the army is larger, and the battle should be more intense, but now players ignore it and choose to upgrade directly to P3 before fighting, because P2 does not have siege weapons, it is difficult for the enemy to cause devastating blow. This makes the flow of the game look like a dumbbell - heavy on both ends and light in the middle. If P1 is militarized, then P2 should be more intense than P1, and the entire game should be a continuous increase in intensity from P1 to P3, instead of making P2 an embarrassing "peacetime".

Nobody likes Athenians in 0 A.D.

To complicate an otherwise simple and effective mechanism can't be called fun, it's called trouble for players.

You don't need a ceasefire, P1 tests which player can get ready for battle faster. This actually complicates the game mechanics, which originally only required civilians and soldiers. Now there are women who farm, civic infantry who log wood, mine metal and stone, civic cavalry who hunt, mercenary infantry who can build buildings but can't gather resources, mercenary cavalry and champions who can't gather resources or build buildings.