Leaderboard

Hello everyone, I'm sharing with you this mod that I made long ago, hoping it is useful to somebody. The mod is named CircularCamera (official page on GitLab) and it provides nine new cameras, each pointing at a fixed position on the map. Each camera can be accessed with a hotkey. See image below. Features Nine new pre-set cameras are available: one points at the center of the map and eight point at the eight corners of the map. Jumping to any of these cameras can be done via a hotkey. Hotkeys can be edited from the Hotkeys menu. Distance of cameras from map center: the default distance from the center, as well as the increasing/decreasing step can be adjusted from the Options menu. The distance of the cameras from the map center can also be changed in-game via hotkeys. Hotkeys: search for circularcamera in the Hotkeys menu: all the relevant hotkeys can be found and edited there. Installation Click here to download the latest release. Install following the official 0 A.D. guide: How to install mods? Alternative downloads: Latest Release (.pyromod) | Latest Release (.zip) | Older Releases Contribute The public repository is at this page. Everybody is very welcome to contribute, suggest, fork or simply give feedback. Have fun!

In general I would agree, but the DDOSers have lived to tell a different story. You also wouldn't know what you download. e.g. a modified small balancing mod could contain nasty JS code that does things it shouldn't. This is actually why we have mod signatures on mod.io. It's not fool proof, but we check all the mods submitted there. I believe it's the reason other than "Nobody coded it" why we don't have automatic download.

The champion should be a soldier who is stronger than the citizen soldier. The types of soldiers can be overlapped. I still remember that in A23, Persia had a citizen soldier chariot. So far, Magadha also has an elephant archer as a citizen soldier. The problem is, but these factions cannot have both citizen soldier war elephants/chariots and champion war elephants/chariots, they can only choose one of the two. This is different from the fact that most factions have citizen infantry/cavalry, but also champion infantry/cavalry. A25 restricts chariots/chariots to P3 as champions, which will only be a weakening for those countries that are historically famous for these arms, because war elephants/chariots will be included in their tactical system from the beginning and cannot be used in P2's use of war elephants/chariots is just disguised to strengthen those countries that have an advantage in infantry/cavalry (usually these countries also don't have war elephants/chariots), which is unfair. Therefore, war elephants/chariots should be "disenchanted" conceptually. Maybe some of us think that chariots/war elephants are "powerful and special decisive weapons", but in fact for many civilizations, this is only the most common troops. Elephants/chariots existed in the same era as infantry/cavalry, and not only in decisive battles, but also in skirmishes. Because of this, the South Asian/Southeast Asian countries in Age of Empires 2 can generally train war elephants in the stables in T2, and we should do the same, put war elephants/chariots in P2 as citizen soldiers. War elephants/chariots exist as both citizen soldiers and champions at the same time only if the faction has stronger war elephants/chariots, for example Magadha has normal war elephants and armored war elephants, Persia has normal war chariots and heavy ones Scythe Chariot. At this time, the relationship between ordinary war elephants/chariots and champion war elephants/chariots is the same as the relationship between ordinary cavalry and cataphract. And when we put the war elephant/chariot to P2, we can also put the hero to P2 incidentally, without worrying about the hero war elephant/chariot appearing earlier than the champion war elephant/chariot, making the hero earlier of functioning. Further, the battlefield positioning of war elephants/chariots should also be adjusted. For example, war elephants should not have crush attacks, but are good at attacking melee infantry/cavalry, and are easily counterattacked by ranged infantry/cavalry. Chariots can shoot arrows or throw javelins while running, and can use scythes to kill infantry and cavalry, etc.

An option with respect to that is letting people download mods from mod.io, not the host, but fetch the list of mods from the host. It's essentially the same thing but you don't need to trust the host so much. That feature I think we only miss for lack of trying. --- Now with that being said: I think one thing that gets forgotten in this discussion a little is that the project is still given as an alpha. The snail pace is sort of OK. It's actually less idle now than 3 years ago, for example. Should it 'die' in number of players, well it can just be rebooted later with a different visions since the objectors will have moved on. This is a different ballpark entirely to commercial endeavours, which must succeed. We can fail time and time again and it doesn't really matter.

@Yekaterina 0ad has a good community and is not pay to win. I would not consider it time wasted in my book.

@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

I have been thinking lately about how to optimize the component manager system. I have an idea that seems worth trying and wanted to get any feedback possible from people who are more familiar with the code base then I am. std::vector<std::unordered_map<entity_id_t, IComponent*> > m_ComponentsByInterface; // indexed by InterfaceId This data structure seems to be doing two things at once, and because of that could be optimized more. This structure serves two logic paths which seem to me are pretty hot: QueryInterface and getEntitiesWithInterface/getEntitiesWithInterfaceUnordered. (These are all functions within ComponentManager.cpp). if we create a new data structure like: std::vector<std::vector<iComponent*>> m_ComponenentsByEntity; //entity(outer) and component(inner) indexed by InterfaceID to serve QueryInterface we could remove the relatively expensive std::map.find call it contains and replace with fast vector de-reference. getEntitiesWithInterface could continue to use the existing data structure or the std::map could become a std::list. This would give marginal performance gains but also allow the minor logical gain of replacing calls to getEntitiesWithInterfaceUnordered with getEntitiesWithInterface, since the insertion order is preserved automatically. Also some significant performance gain for the ordered variety, but I think that one isn't used much anyway? There is some minimal cost when units are created and a more significant cost when units die. Still it seems very much worth it. Also some RAM cost, pretty negligible. Maybe 17mb per 1000 units in a worst case scenario with 256 components? After doing this maybe an experiment with using a naked array of component pointers in m_ComponentsByEntity to save the vector overhead is worth trying as a further upgrade. Thank you for your time reading this and for any feedback you might have.

I tend to agree with the speed of it to be honest ... and from what I've heard, there seems to be even less developers on the project today then there was even a few weeks ago. Accelerating game development, in my mind, would be a really good idea. One step towards that goal, would be to increase accessibility of the project. At the moment, the development and source management tools are somewhat archaic; or at least they appear that way to me. (not to mention I think some are just dead? as in the main creator/maintainer no longer creates/maintains them) There seems to be a huge resistance to moving to github, which is unfortunate, but I hear there's another option in the works. To be honest ... I think the project should just use github and move on; the visibility it'd get from it would be priceless. (Having a mirror and requiring people to then take their "patch" and make a request against the main noise ... doesn't fit the use case of improving usability and access to the project). Some sort of package manager type thing would be cool, for mod management. The details of implementation depend entirely on how complicated we get with it ... but to be honest, even a simple zip file with a config/metadata file in it would be suitable. I think the blocker for a proper modloading solution at the moment is decoupling the main "mod" from the game (If I understand correctly, anyone feel free to correct me; I've been away for a while). On a side note, with regard to github resistance ... I honestly don't get what the problem is. So like ... it's an open source project, so they can't really steal the code. In addition ... saying "oh what if they close / delete the repo?" well ... that's what having a proper infrastructure (including backups) helps prevent entirely. If we always have multiple sources of the code ... then we really can't lose it. I honestly think with just a few steps/actions/decisions, this project could skyrocket. The game as it is ... is really great (even though I last played it like 3 years ago lol) ... we just have to do what's best for the project, instead of our own opinions/desires. Of course, people can still work on the project in the way they do currently ... but I believe opening it up to others should be the priority at the moment. If the reason why something like github is opposed, is because they don't want others in the main (0ad/wildfire) codebase, then maybe those people should just fork it and work on it themselves, rather than hold everything back. Or in contrast ... we could just work around possible conflicts, and evolve as a team to having more hands on deck; tbh the forks kill the project. Every fork indicates effort lost on the core of the game, in my mind at least. -My 2 cents ... don't mean to offend anyone at all. This is meant entirely as observations of someone who has been monitoring and/or contributing (minorly) to the project since about 9 years ago (first added a save menu thing lol ... was mostly xml). Thanks!

Recently I returned to RTS and mostly thanks to AoE3:DE. The original didn't quite click on me, I didn't like the unlocking cards thing as it made skirmish very grindy. This is the only current RTS I play on ranked (altough I have a lousy 920 ELO). I love the cards system now that they are unlocked, it lets you play all kind of wacky things, Mexico is my favourite of the new civs but I also play Portugal (which is kind of in a bad shape right now) and Dutch (which are fun altough a bit of a one-trick pony civ) I hope they keep improving the game, specially the AI. I find it dissapointing that the AI doesn't build walls and that it very rarely revolts. In this aspect AoE2 is still the king (the AI mops the floor with me on anything above moderate) I'm super hyped for the release of KoTM, that and 0AD alpha 26 are my most anticipated things right now!

I think you should try to accelerate the development of the game, because that means we need more developers. More developers mean more cool features. Some people have a practical mindset, some people are geniuses. Though be wary: Some people are just trolls.

Me neither. The best thing about 0ad is that we can resolve all problems by making our own mods or just switching back to A23. I am making my own gameplay mod and I would be happy to share it with anyone who is interested. However, I have exams coming up soon, therefore I should revise and consolidate exam skills now, instead of spamming units in the lobby. The main issue with lobby games is that 30%-40% of games are good games and the others are bad games that are either imbalanced or played on a bad map. If one of your teammates make a mistake, that can also be detrimental to the outcome. Furthermore the time spent waiting for players and balancing games is too long, in my opinion. In order for you to enjoy features from your mod, everyone must have the same mod, which is not feasible. This is why I prefer singleplayer nowadays. @Stan` do you think that it's possible for all guest players to use the mods and features from the host player? For example, if I am hosting and I change archer attack to 10 pierce, is it possible for 0ad to synchronise this value across all players in-game, so that everyone's archers in my host have 10 pierce without OOS? After they quit my host, their value is restored to the original 6.5? This would reduce a lot of hassle as the host can change the balancing of units and civs in the game, without bothering the forum or the developers.

New constructable road or already built up road. Gives a speed bonus to any unit as long as it's moving on it. Already built up city or unique constructible buildings (forum, cave dwellings, cave temple, barracks, etc ) based on the original ones. Some buildings would have a better strength than all other buildings of any civilization. See the pictures from wikipedia. This might be an ability when playing some civilizations on maps with lots of canyons, mountains, cliffs. Many civilizations were able to dig cave buildings (link to the french wikipedia, more historical than its equivalent in english) all around the world.

One thing i notice about citizen soldiers is that it makes raiding/harassing way less profitable and interesting than in AoE. One thing that could be interesting if that male citizens would have to get their equipment at the nearest barracks(after all I doubt soldiers were chopping wood in full armored gear). That would also add the importance of protecting military buildings, having your only barracks knocked over would leave you defenseless. Having your men picking resources too far from their barracks would also be very punishable. Of course I am a noob and I know this would probably be too complicated to implement, I just wanted to give my two cents about it

No expert RTS player will say that the cost of CS soldiers is the cause for players floating spare metal. Because any expert player will not waste energy to collect any resources that are not being spent. What age of empires 2 does better than 0ad is the following: When a player reaches the next age, the timing difference between you and your opponent is hugely important. important crucial timing difference is not a single moment in the game, but it happens when players reach both castle age and imperial age. Only after these important timings have passed away, players are able to think about unlocking their full arsenal. So age of empires has 2 very important moments in the game before you can start working on unlocking your full arsenal (getting all the relevant technologies of the so called post imperial age). In 0ad for comparison often see the following: there are 0 import stages of the game before unlocking your full arsenal and players cruise nearly mindlessly the position to unlock their full arsenal (p3 with all relevant forge technologies).

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.

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

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

@Mastoras I've made a patch: D4654, could you test it with smoothlos = "true"?

1v1 quitter rated game. player name: HOI commands.txt metadata.json