Leaderboard

By that logic only a football commentator who'd won the ballon d'or as a player themselves should have the right to commentate on football! Who you trying to kid, dude It's a game, it's about entertaining and enhancing the viewing spectacle for spectators, calling the action as it happens, adding a little extra dimension to it. For me, it's never been about teaching people to emulate what they're watching - its about watching a game for the enjoyment of watching the game and giving a human presence and voice to the action.

0 A.D take the history in your hands! The first time I played Age of Empires I fell in love, but with 0 A.D I got married. ------ now to the point --------- As it is already in the final stage of development, there is Alpha. There is no room for anything new. continuing the series of wishes for the next Alpha. I wish: More technologies for early and second phase. more cultural and religious background.(Bonus in stats and HP, XP). More units. new sub classes. ( Differentiate units with little armor and with a lot of armor) More maps. New modes. More differentiated factions. More strategies. More AI development.

Lybian Mercenaries.

YES ,PLEASE

Referencias; (Preclásico tardío y Protoclásico ) referencia de estandartes y sombrillas mayas (estela 5 de Izapa) referencia de palanquines mayas Estela 21 Izapa referencia instrumentos mayas (Tambores, trompetas , conchas y sonajas) referencias para Cacique Local Maya ¿Qué opinan? @Lopess @Lion.Kanzen @ImmramAtani @wowgetoffyourcellphone @Stan` @Trinketos@soloooy0@Ultimate Aurelian Disculpen las molestias*

More campaigns and AI development - basically, more ways to play the game by yourself even after you're a good player.

Some maps like Acropolis Bay and Via Augusta have roads or paths drawn into them, but so far they have no real effect on the gameplay. In order for the artist's work to not go to waste, I propose adding a road feature to maps, where units walking on roads receive a certain amount of speed bonus, say, 10%, compared to off-road units. The justification being walking through rough grassland or forests is much slower than on paved roads, as you have to actively dodge plants, rocks, uneven terrain etc. This will make players consider how they reinforce their troops, where to set up buildings and where to pick fights. Furthermore, we can allow players to build roads. I'm sure the city builders would love it, as I once was a city builder and I'd love to be able to build roads in 0AD.

possible forge balancing changes: 50 additional stone cost (to make furnace I guess), make research times more progressive (40sec for level 1, 50sec for level 2, 60sec for level 3 -> 20, 40, 60 sec) Reason: not spamming 3 to 4 forges to get p3 faster, make p2 fights more practical, make initial upgrades more accessible with just 1 or 2 forges.

Thank you. Your fix works perfect.

Any of these suggestions has math that might be intuitive in some situations. Any sentence used to describe the system does not provide a good intuitive way to judge statistics. When it is impossible to explain the entire story in one sentence, the best might be to use a few extra ones. What I would suggest is that if you look is to give more information in the structure tree when selecting the armor upgrades. Example:

Well you can do plenty of fancy stuff with the UI as @maroder proved.

https://store.epicgames.com/en-US/p/terraforming-mars-18c3ad Free until 12.05.2022 at 5:00 PM

Si, pero estamos hablando de entretenimiento. Las formas más interesantes de aprender son las lúdicas, luego las audiovisuales y luego las orales y por último texto.

It is clear that here I am going to leave examples of African-Punic units. Lybians , Numidians etc.

Increíble como siempre en el nombre falta algo

@real_tabasco_sauce I agree hyrcanian cavs are garbage I like skiritai commandos and their price and power kind of between champion and CS. They are strong, but never impossible to deal with. I would like to see some other units in other civs potentially have this stat relationship. Perhaps even some champions for some civs could be made cheaper but worse. I think even if we can't agree on the particular stats you came up with, giving hrycanians more dps than swordcav to account for their very weak pierce armor would be great change.

Yes.

Buenos días o tardes; -Además de hacer edificios extras para el Editor de Escenarios , pensé en incluir , unidades; Cacique Local ; Canoa de Gobernante Divino; Canoa de Gobernantes Militares; Gran Canoa de Guerra; Cortesanos; (Combinación de tocados) Noble sobre palanquín; Estandartes; Músicos; Portador de antorchas; (Hay que imaginarse las con el fuego en el extremo) Portadores de Sombrillas; Catálogo de unidades; (Aún me falta incluir , Cortesanas mujeres, Mujeres nobles en palanquín y Cacique Epiolmeca, haciendo 12 en total) Disculpen las molestias*

The idea of current armour is that +1 is always +X% (I don't remember what percentage exactly, maybe 10%), whether your base armour is 1 or 999 doesn't matter. There are three approaches for resistance, broadly: Raw numbers (AoE 2) -> has the drawback of being very prone to unexpected big changes from small deltas (e.g. a +1 tech can be anywhere from 0% to -50% damage in practice) Percentage points -> Add 10 percentage points of resistance. So if you had 80%, you now have 90%. The problem is likewise that a tech can have very different effects, but you sort of avoid the thresholding problem. AoM used a system like that IIRC. An exponential system like 0 A.D. uses, where + 1 armour is always +10% armour, no matter what the base armour level is. This is easy to reason about for techs, and easy to reason about for users. But it means you technically cannot have 100% resistance to some damage, though in practice the difference is limited. The main drawback is that the math is kind of unintuitive & raw points don't tell the whole picture.

I wanna reply to a few points of the commentary. 1.early stable being too expensive and not giving value because you cant sustain production from it: i believe since mayu gets extreme excess of extras, per pop this gives much more production value(eco rate), in the same way one gets earlier barack when extra several berries, compared to no extras, per 1 woman, you get 2-3x eco on food(berries vs farms), ie if to rly simplify, 30 pop with berries being used gives far more production than 30 pop with farms. this being said i was doing the early stable strat for the first time from what i recall, so i did it too early, perhaps by 30-40 sec by either starting it early, or putting too many units on it, which + other eco mistakes caused idle time. 2."must attack when making that many cav early": i dont see making 6 women, then 5 cav (20 pop, 5 cav) as super early and unnaceptably costly to sustain without immediate agression/rush, especially as mayu hunting being a detrement. i dont agree and i dont see why you feel eco-ing with cav is bad for eco, or puts you behind When there is hunt availible, and one is adding onto those cav(increasing numbers initiative to later rush) why would you feel only offense is the option? yes i know cav very slightly more expensive for eco, when using to gather hunt, as opposed to making women for berries but given that i was then planning to add on more cav, the cav gathering hunt is only option for large mass(15+). Important point being of course, that enemy doesnt scout you, once they do scout you immediately initiate attack not to lose initiative. Point of rush ofc is to apply stress drastic enough to break the enemies adaptive qualities(ie better attack with 5 cav enemy hasnt scouted, than 15 cav enemy scouted u making 1-2 min ago and had plenty of time to prepare, make men/tower/what have you.) The whole point of mayu, i maximally utilize, for as long a time as allowed, taking as much netural as possible, or viable. with your rhetoric(go immediately, hunting is wasteful of time more than is benefitial via res accrual or otherwise unless post agression, or with a few while rushing), mayu would be mostly useless(still usable tho), you are criticizing the very viability of ele, given if i shouldnt use neutral hunt, and mass with it, thats the main point of op-ness of mayu negated, and if you think merely hunting AFTER rush is the only option, or post agression, with not all cav availible this makes no sense as you are decimating the profit potential of the mayu advantage, by merely using it mildly, partially and post key benefit window timeframe(after u attack, not b4 to mass up the attack force via neutralhunt i mean), basically eating crumbs and throwing away the sandwich. 3. The point about me being able to send 5 cav and force ur woodline to retreat, which you said was better than "idling" or implied half-assing of a rush: n1 i didnt have location of ur woodline scouted, so i couldnt attack you there immediately, directly, with ease or without some delay of going around the wrong way 50%, etc n2 even if i find the woodline, 5 cav most likely wont do the damage you were describing, in nash equilibreum(both sides playing perfect) you would most likely retreat for 2-3sec , giving enough time for ur cav to rejoin your 4 men, now it being 5v5 with 2 archer 2 spear 1 cav vs 5 cav realistically, as it often does it would end up in spearmen being exchanged for cav, as spear(s) get close to cav the 5cav side retreats back, spears die off with 1/2 cav dying too, all rest(2arch/cav) get into cc, and ofc while after all this happens maybe your cc has 10-15 more sec left to get the next cav/inf batch out(2-3 or 4), so no potential of houses/storehouse being captured, ofc also 2archers defend(deterrent) well vs such things via harass, and easily retreating to cc if chased. ofc if reality were as you had described, that 5 cav could easily win in perfect play vs 4spear/archer infsize every1 would do it every time. im not saying this strat doesnt work, im saying most likely it wouldnt work against a player of your skill level, or even a 2000 or 1900. but the actuality is my 5 cav cost a great deal of res(750+far higher traintime), walktime/searching for target. the fact that i made stable for the purpouses of training units at a much faster rate, with 2 prod buildings, relying on heightened eco from extras meant i HAD to hunt with 5 cav, had i sent them sr8 to you as you said wouldve been best, id have no production, as happened because of my misplays multiple times during the game(not sending women to berries/getting baskets on time, not having some cav hunt(1-2 or injured ones), many more i forget. The mild delay for ur wood women to walk to ccwood, and then back to woodline, while ur men fight me off(equal unitcost res exchange at best for me 200/200 or so), and reinforcements get trained isnt worth my 750 investment that i got an equal exchange on + lost all initiative as now u know my state and that i can make more cav afterwards, and uve made more military(cav/inf). Even worse if i wasnt mayu, and generally just atacked with 5cav(can be done with any javcav civ ofc) now i have no targets, my cav are guranteed value drain/burden/lost investment because you have the info, and will surely adapt with ease and close off all chance of me getting value(in perfect play ofc, which isnt unrealistic or unreasonable, jav cav are simple to counter and extremely familiar to all players) 4. point about either attacking all in, or ecoing all in, no half assing(i completely agree with sentiment ofc, you cant have your cake and eat it too, point of an action is to make a sacrifice in one avenue while overloading in a specific avenue, far above your enemies level as to get initiative, a snowball effect(geometric progression)result with a linear investment/sacrifice) ex 10 vs 15, 5 arent left alive, more like 8-9. with gathering hunt, 24/7 as long as ur cav are employed in eco you dont have any gameending, or improper play level, real severe drain on eco compared to the opponent, you dont at all fall behind(at least pre enemy starting to make men as carth, for minerals, but i play carth so i know generally at least 20 women are made, which tells me the timing of a general build order) and based on how long he lets you mass, without scouting you, and thereby being unable to prevent/counter you actually get more insane initiative, more and more so the longer you "waste time", as you said when you were dissaproving of me attacking at such a late stage as min 3.05. the future potential of a guranteed win lets say 20 cav vs 7 men or something, outweights the 100-300 res worth of loss in eco value stalling the immediate option to attack for a few min. not even fully speaking of the boost in later advantage that having extras untouched in ur base, compared to enemy who used them up, while u were draining midextras gives. 5. split units, 5/4 bad, better to go all together. while i generally agree with this sentiment; I do know it was my mistake, needed to scout woodline with 2 cav harass far ahead of the attack and forgot. I had just improvised on the spot, given unit positions of mine, and walktime/initiative wasteage that would come from me organizing them into a single group, also keeping in mind the 50% chance of huge time waste since hadnt scouted yet, and this way cav could find berries sooner if split apart, engage sooner, stall eco sooner at least with taunt/harass. this was not pre-planned, i also presumed that they could reconnect at behind, after the berry harass but afterwards decided against it having seen your numbers and knowing attacking further was pointless with 8 cav after scuiciding 1 cav+bit of dmg incured on the rest. i saw you scouted me and thereby had to attack immediately planning to not let you make men, thats why i didnt have the time to scout you, already having forgotten to do so beforehand. It did work quite well, my on the spot plan of distracting you with 5 cav, expecting you to focus on them with all men, and feel that your woodline was threatened, so that i could target your berries with rest, having scouted enough area to know where id find the berries at(at the back, front was scouted. 2 women dead, 1 cav dying was purely my micro mistake of idling them too long under line of fire, and 2 was the bare minimum i shouldve been able to kill, bad execution, not bad strategy, no men wouldve been in cc when you see woodline being cavrushed, youd bring all in, to get most optimal kd vs 5 and + not have me add in more and win vs ur 90-95%, while few were in cc for no reason. 6. keep in mind that this isnt an "ALL IN" as you state in title of your video i understand given last 2 or maybe 3 plays vs you, of same interesting setup carth. vs mayu. you would think that this would be an all in, since maybe 2/3 or 3/3 of the previous plays were all ins, and for all of them you thought they were, having not watched any replays and simply inferred. i woudnt call making 6 women, and then making even more women along the way also, an all in, which also gives me slight leeway in terms of few mins of delay or flexibility room as to how i act, as opposed to str8 0 women/men train, allcav b4 atack, keep only 8 workers on eco type build. i had maybe 17 women or so at some point, when 15 cav were attacking(and scuiciding 1+dmg+scuiciding position/engage which cost me the game, as had many other instances i failed, for example another being right after, where ur spearmen had a lot of time needed to come, and i was far ahead in numbers, retreated cav for no reason, letting u kill of my spearmen/attack archers). as long as i have hunt to gather, it have 0 forced all in only option move so the strat itself isnt an all in rush nessesarily.

Buenos días o tardes; (Actualización de ); -Guerrero vestido de jaguar; -----------(Aj Balam B'ate) Unidades terminadas; -Mulher;---------------------------( ixik ) -Soberana Maya /Reina Maya ; ----------------------------( ix Ajaw) (Versión censurada u "Oficial"-por protección de menores) Referencia soberanas; Disculpen las molestias*

tomislavkranjec challange me 1x1 rated game and he was the host Then he quit without resign commands.txt metadata.json

levels just hide the complexity. you either blindly accept them, or, if you want to actually understand what's happening, you have to dig in some unpleasant math. would you rather have the shield technologies at the forge say "soldiers gain +1 pierce resistance" or "soldiers receive 10% less pierce damage"? both are simple and correct (reducing some value by 10% twice results in a 19% decrease), but only the second one is also explainatory. the first one actually means nothing at all.

Just to add additional opinion and muddy the water and assure inaction: I hate the term "resistance" altogether and much prefer the term "armor." But to answer the question as to why the armor, uh, resistance is calculated the way it is, is that each "level" of armor takes away exactly 10% less damage than the value before it. Look at it this way. If you keep adding 10% on top of 10% you're not reducing the incoming damage by an equal amount each time, you're reducing the incoming damage by a greater amount each time, actually. 10% armor against an incoming attack of 10 hack, gives a received damage of 9. A reduction of 1 from 10. Research a tech that adds another 10% armor on top. That gives you 20% armor now. 20% armor against an incoming attack of 10 hack, gives a received damage of 8. The incoming attack is reduced by another whole 1 point. But 1 point from 9 is not 10%, it's 11%. Each new 10% you add ontop of the armor exacerbates the issue. It's "easier to understand" for players, but negatively affects gameplay. "Levels" were introduced to fix this. Each additional level takes the above problem into account and cancels it out, so that each new level reduces received damage by exactly 10%. That's why Level 1 armor is 10%, but Level 2 armor is 19% (not 20%).

"+10% hack resistance" is not very clear as it doesn't really explain what resistance is, and is not correct if you apply it on percentages. "-10% hack damage suffered" is unambiguos and clear enough.

I wonder if it might be possible to have a military score that incorporated kill:death ratio into the score. Say you get an increasing # of bonus points for having an increasingly positive ratio. In 1v1 games, it wouldn't make a difference. But for team games, esp. 4v4, it would do a lot more to show that a player who kills 400 units and loses 350 did a lot worse than a player who kills 375 units and loses 100. Whereas now the worse player gets the higher military score.

the problem is how to represent that, of social status in the game. Happiness (?), for me happiness is = better bonus of something. I always give the HP bonus, in other moment to the stats (for soldiers). I am working on the religion of the game, The cultural part of religion, I mean... the psychological side.

I think it would be nice to introduce some features that represent the culture of certain factions. An idea would be the Roman bathhouses. The in game effect could be similar to the technology living condition where garrisoned units regain HP.

That would be very nice. Currently the dominant strategy has little strategical depth: Spam skirmishers and spearmen (or pikemen)

We need campaign mode, and other interesting maps with trigger scripts. Let each faction have more abundant units, such as slingers and axeman. Enrich the types of formations and strengthen their effects. In addition to the Greeks and Romans, other ethnic groups should also have unique formations.

I forgot the campaigns. @Stan` We can start including some.

at least this game will receive basic things.

-Mercenary camps system. - Trading post - Advanced diplomacy. -Battalions -Advanced Tech tree. -Advanced trading -Player vs environment features.

Con que no luzcan aztecas ya es bastante. Los mayas rara vez aparecen representados en Videojuegos.

i dont see any point of people below 1600 "covering games" from what i have seen of them theres only incorrect info that would harm the spectators understanding or skill. i suggest being extremely general and objective(purely reacting to occurence), avoid statements, facts, opinions or insights or simply adding "i think" and low player skill disclaimer helps also. nevertheless im completely fine with it.