Leaderboard

Dear 0 A.D. friends, I am happy to announce a new release of the LocalRatings mod! Most notably, the new release includes the following new features. The rating of a player and the number of games played appears next to the player's name in the Match Setup page. This will hopefully make balancing games an easier task. See image below. A new Player Filter has been added to the mod: now it is possible to filter out players depending on their rating or the number of games they played. Download and install: you can download the new release (v0.25.5) of the mod from the zip file attached to this post or from the zip file attached to the first post of this thread or from the official page. I wish to thank all the forum users who gave feedback and suggestions. A special thanks goes to sanafur, who suggested the above (and other possibly future) features. Have fun! LocalRatings-v0.25.5.zip

Most important core problems of 0ad are about Multiplayer - ddos - loading doesnt work - joining matches not always possible - no replay if rejoin etc

Part 1: The core problem of 0AD is that the fundamental settings (designs) are incomplete, which hinders our ability to make improvements, for example, citizen-soldiers, territory, phases and heroes. 1. Citizen-Soldiers The original intention of adding citizen-soldiers was to combine worker units and soldier units of most RTS games into 1 category, in order to simplify the gameplay. However, this was not successful in practice. Eventually, we gave birth to 3 categories of workers: women, citizen infantry and citizen cavalry, on top of mercenaries who function as builders. Aside from them are the champions, mercenary cavalry and heroes, who cannot work. The division into these categories not only didn’t simplify the matter but replaced the 2 unit types with a much more complicated unit categorisation system, defying the purpose. At the same time, 0AD aims to be historically accurate, but the design of citizen soldiers juxtaposes with the aim because it relies on the principle that all civilisations have similar basic unit trees and identical stats, for balance. For example, some civs have archers while others don’t. In order to balance the civs, archers are javelineers cost identical amounts of resources and archers had their attack stats weakened to a historically inaccurate extent just to compensate for the javlineers’ range disadvantage. This results in later-added archer civs (e.g. Han, Scythians, Kushites) being placed at a disadvantage in military, even though historically they were quite advanced in military and technology. On the contrary, in a RTS with a clear division between workers and soldiers, all you needed to do was to give archers a higher skill requirement and more resource cost to balance. Aside from this, in order to not overcomplicate the units required to boom your eco, citizen soldiers cost mostly wood and food, which not only banished the classification of units based on demands for rare metal prevalent in other RTS games (in AoE, javlineers and spearmen who cost only food and wood are separate from their swordsman and cavalry units which cost metal), but also resulted in players floating spare metal. Since citizen soldiers and structures do not conflict with mercenaries in resource requirement, mercenaries which only cost metal become ‘cheap’, resulting in them destroying the balance. The immense demand for wood to build cities do conflict with the training of citizen soldiers. On low wood maps designed in the past, this troubles players without mercenary units (making Carth, Maury, Ptol OP on these maps). The status quo of citizen-soldiers not only hinders the adjustments of stats based on historical facts, but also amplified the complexity of worker units and monopolised the demand for wood and food, which is not worthwhile. Therefore, refering to AoE, AoM, etc, I think we should make the following adjustments: 1. Adding civilians of both genders that only cost food. They have the highest efficiency at collecting resources and building structures. Use civilians to replace starting infantry. 2. Adjust all infantry except for heroes to become ‘frontline builders’, such that they can chop wood and build military facilities including siege engines. The efficiency of working is independent from their military rank. 3. All cavalry and infantry (except heroes) are ‘part time hunters’; they can gather hunt at a similar rate as civilians. 4. Citizen spearman, swordsman, pikeman, archer and cavalry cost different amounts of food and metal, only. Javlins and slingers who don’t need metal are defined as ‘trash units’

Not necessarily. The problem with CS arises because the optimal total unit composition--when a player needs both economic and military work done as fast as possible--is pure CS, rather than a mix of CS and Civilian units. This means that 1. there is very little tradeoff between economic and military buildups and 2. it is possible to instantly pivot from a 100% economic strategy to a 100% military strategy, and back, with no build-up or fore warning. These factors, combined with 0AD's commitment to soft (i.e. weak) or non-existent counters, makes for a very simplified strategic environment. CS provide your offense, your defense, and your economy all in one place, better than a mix of CS and Civilian. Put another way, CS is just too near parity to civilians in terms cost effectiveness for economic tasks. If they were made less effective at harvesting (and maybe building), or if their cost were increased, that would tip the scales more in favor of making CS + Civilian mixes. Efficiency at economic tasks would then be less of a critical balance point for CS units, once it is no longer one of their primary responsibilities: meaning more freedom to change movement speed or price without breaking the game; resource harvesting and building become a bonus thing CS are able to do when they are not preforming their primary purpose of military action. All without ever needing to abandon the historically authentic concept that ancient soldiers usually performed non-military roles within their societies in addition to their martial service.

lol so the *mitigation* strategy for a unit categorization problem is to remake from scratch the whole eco of the game? criticizing the citizen-soldier concept: you are doing it wrong

Or maybe @Mercury could try that if they feel comfortable This way you can work on other stuff and guide them. About RAM usage keep in mind we are limited to 32bits on windows for now. See this.

@AIEND Has put much effort into typing up a document that outlines the fundamental problems of 0AD so far and solutions to fix them. Being an expert RTS player who has played a large variety of RTS games, his opinions will certainly be worth considering. The origininal document was typed in Chinese and I will translate it here. I believe this might provide a solution to the endless balancing discussions and new balancing issues the crop up every alpha. Orginal document: 0AD修正[352].docx

Hi, I'm posting this suggestion there because I didn't find the related section on the forums. My apologies. I suggest the dev team to think of adding the Appian Way and the city of Matera (take a look at the nice pics of this city) The Appain Way might be buildable (at least a connexion to it) or pre-existing in maps, and it might have a speed booster effect for moving units and trading carts from one place to another. The city of Matera is interesting because I've seen in no game cave dwellings which, are one of the oldest type of home for the ancient peoples. These cave dwellings might get a strength bonus since they were carved in plain rock. FYI : 10 Fascinating Cave Dwellings in the World

This is true. No game has ever achieved this.balance is subjective. and so is human opinion.

I think there needs to be a dynamic mutual superiority relationship rather than unilateral superiority, for example, the archer counters slow units and units without shields, so it counters both melee infantry and melee cavalry, but if both If you can get close to an archer, that archer will also be defeated. So whether the archer has an advantage over the melee infantry and the melee cavalry depends on preventing the infantry and cavalry from approaching the archer, that is, making them "run slower", if this is achieved, then the cavalry is more vulnerable because it The defense against arrows is even worse. But we know that to stop the advance of the infantry, we only need to use the infantry to block, but to block the cavalry mainly rely on fortifications such as walls, so the cavalry can generally restrain the archers, but if the archers get the cover of the wall or their own cavalry in the confrontation, That can also form restraint on the enemy's cavalry. In general, certain conditions are required for one type of soldier to gain an advantage over another type of soldier. If the conditions are lost, the relationship will be reversed.

No, I don't think a distinction is needed, but that's why we can't refer to Age of Empires in this regard.

Ticket 3038 comment:1 (7/Feb/15)

@soloooy0 aqui esta. instalas la aplicación y luego escoges un directorio.

I was referring to balance update, not engine updates. If balancing is meant to be a thing that helps to define more dynamic gameplay, then we need to dare to make more changes. If the game is supposed to have a better engine in 2025, then leave engine development to the developers. The balancing team should create a balance such that there is enough strategical diversity, regardless of the engine. In my view it is important to see both how they are related, but also to acknowledge that they are very much their own thing (e.g. multiplying food gathering rate by 1.5 and wood gathering rate by 0.67 would do way more for balance that any reasonable engine upgrade could do).

It is known. problem is that the game is not 100% compatible to small resolutions. https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4292#183447 no problem on 1920*1080.

Exactly, you pay 500 gold to a tribe, it gives you 10 extremely fast units with a very burn power, but weak for general combat, or 5 units of 2 men and a trunk, much faster than a conventional ram, capable of destroying buildings in a more stealthy way. We could have relics around the map as an old metal mine, with infinite metal or a large metal mine and some towers around, which would make it difficult for the enemy to fight these collectors.

I like the core idea of how 0a.d works, so maybe I wouldn't change anything about how it works now. Regarding spam, I think adding viable strategies on the map, such as treasures, alliances, abandoned fortresses among others, can help. The objective is to add other means of achieving victory other than just making large numbers of soldiers. Champions must be trained in p1. They must be really strong compared to conventional soldiers, this would encourage them to spend resources training champions instead of more citizen soldiers. Also champions must have some sort of special skill, like being able to train siege units or special buildings like towers that can be built on enemy terrain.

Everyone calm down! I was doing the translation, these are not my opinions, I am simply acting as an upgraded Google Translate Pro VIP++ Of course, there might be imperfections in my translations. I also must add that I have never played AoE or AoM before; the closest thing to an RTS was Ice age village and maybe PVZ2.

Eh, not much, but you're really not missing out. There's been very few threads in the past few years, and mostly internal drama.

Because design doc. It pretty much describes a total war clone. Single worker micro with detailed economy (which leads to nowhere btw because it's just unoriginally taken from AoE without putting a thought in it) is repetitive micro. “Fastest click wins - In many RTS games, it isn't the player with the most intelligence or the best strategy that wins, it's the player who A] knows the proper order of actions and B] carries them out the fastest. People that practice a general procedure that is usually rewarding and know keyboard shortcuts should be slightly advantaged, and they will still be required; but, the if the opponent recognises their 'cookie cutter' gameplay, they should easily be able to outwit them by identifying and countering the unoriginal/over-used tactics with an effective counteractive strategy. Single path to victory - It seems to be a trend that games cater to a specific strategy that is frequently used to attain a victory. That could be rushing, turtling, booming, etc. We recognise these are valid ways to win a game, but we will attempt to not favour one over another. Players should be able to successfully use (and adapt/change) any strategy to achieve a victory. Sneaky Tricks - Many games overlook some aspects of gameplay that are unintentionally (by the game designers) used to a player's advantage. Through many hours of gameplay testing, we need to identify and eliminate these tricks. Repetition - If you find yourself doing the same action over and over without thought, then we need to either eliminate or automate such an action. Linear repetitious procedures are meaningless and boring. “ About resources: once more: Defender has 10 soldiers gathering 10 res every 10 seconds. Attacker has 10 soldiers gathering 10 res every 10 seconds. Both bases are 1 minute of walking distance away from each other. 10 x 6 = 60 res per minute per player If attacker now turns his men away from his down and starts attacking he no longer gets 60 res. the defender still gets 60 res. Total difference is 120 resources. Player 1 has 60 less while player 2 has 60 more. You can lessen the effect by either make soldiers move around the map at unrealistic speed (currently the case) and by making the individual collection rates low (lower effect of resource loss). But the issue is always present.That's why citizen soldiers without resource hard caps is a broken design.

@DarcReaver - may I congratulate you on a good dissertation. May you defend it well! On to my comments/ suggestions: I agree, but like @sphyrth, I’d like to retain one basic horseman as scout during the start of the game. Totally agree. House walls are a basic staple of my single player games against the AI – having less of use of them would definitely be a welcome change. Yes, something similar to Rise of Nation’s infantry units. You’ve made a good observation in that it would feel you are striving to become an Emperor instead of a glorified village chief. I can’t emphasize how I totally like this. The default game should be a slow game, with the higher/ more experienced players to be choosing a faster game if they want to. The reason why I personally don’t play multiplayer is that I suck at fast games. There were a bunch of times wherein I get owned by the AI since I am too slow. A slow game would be both strategic and tactical; strategic because you can plan how you want to attack the enemy, and tactical since, together with your other proposal of higher unit HPs, this will mean a better use of units you’ve trained and spent resources of. I support this, with a minor suggestion: let the women become efficient in gathering berries, since from time immemorial, it has always been the role of women (and children) to gather them. There is a reason for the emphasis. @Palaxin mentioned the calculation related to population. What I like with the Stronghold series is it’s realistic take on population and how aesthetically pleasing is it to see “peasants” grow. I know I may be daydreaming but may I put forward something similar to the way citizens are trained in Stronghold: Based on the formula Palaxin mentioned, a number of children may be produced as “free” citizens. They can’t be trained – they spawn freely after a certain time, outside the constraints of the population cap. In time, they “grow” to become either men or women (random pick), and only when there is a free population cap. What is their function? They can help the economy by helping women gather berries (since they are free, they are limited to gathering berries and maybe coaxing GAIA units – those units you call herdable, back to the player’s control). In turn, they CAN be killed/ captured (similar to a herdable sheep in Age of Empires) by the enemy. This will present another dynamic in enemy raiding – these children will be a free citizen that can grow to become citizens/ slaves. Many things have been said about the citizen soldier concept of 0 AD. Personally, I like it. But you and several others make valid points against the current way it is implemented. My suggestion is to take the approach of Rise of Nation to it – like its citizen militas, there is a button that will “transform” citizens to soldiers, and back. I disagree on it being timed, and being permanent. That button will make it the player’s choice to have his citizens be an economic unit or a military one. You said “choices, choices, and more choices”, so what better way there is but to let the player decide, right? Still on this, I also like how RON made a very good use of the selection rectangle, wherein if you select a bunch of mixed citizens and military units, you only select the military units. That way, dragging the selection within a group will not disrupt your economy. Incidentally, having citizen soldiers be either economic or military unit prevents buffoons like me of ordering citizen soldiers to collect resources when the intention is to have these units go on that area to guard them, not collect resources from them. I’m with you all the way with this. Again, I agree. With the added proposition by @Lion.Kanzen (in a separate post) of having neutral, capturable mines all over the map. Only proposal is for the technologies to be paired with either wood, metal or stone. Point being technologies should be planned and not be simply click-bait. For added realism, may I also suggest that food be a requirement for every human unit, paired with either wood, metal or stone. Machines should not require food. Don’t forget ships too. Here, I disagree. Food and wood being general, let metal be general too. Instead of splitting to get another resource, may I propose “Tech Points/ Knowledge” as an alternative? Please hear me. Empire Earth 2 and in general, Rise of Nations, made good use of this. EEII allowed universities to gather them, while in RON, libraries did this. In 0 AD, may I suggest tech points be used in, but not limited to, the following instances: 1. Discovery of a new line of technology (not upgrades of existing ones, but a totally different technology) 2. Phasing up 3. Recruit of champions/ high tier units (particularly siege engines) This is an agreeable concept. My suggestion is to pair all units that in real life, require metal to be built. Let it be that all buildings require stone (except the wooden ones of course), and paired with wood when applicable. This feature is clearly evident in games like Empire Earth II. There is a base speed, and, depending on where the unit is (units travelling in roads are faster), or the seasons (units in winter have slower speeds), the unit’s speed changes. This I think will really make battles realistic. There are just so many levels “endurance” can improve the game, of which most you've already covered. I agree. Spamming units would be a conscious choice, not a given fact. On Unit armor/ defenses as well as accuracy of attacks and ranging attack values, I totally agree. Really excited and hoping for you/ the community to pull this off. Totally digging this. This is why in a sense, I’m not a hardcore fan of Starcraft. May I also suggest to have a temporary building that will create a city border, a building without any use and timed HP? Let’s call it a camp. This I’m viewing more as a gameplay option wherein you want to build some barracks outside your borders, while incidentally being very useful for map-makers (instead of using the town centers to give an AI army its buildings, a camp can be a very good alternative). All of these, my two cents' worth.