Leaderboard

People riding cavalry have higher ground so they are more likely to see through obstacles although not by much. There is zero reason to why women have less eyesight than men, do I propose letting women have identical vision range to men. The current setting is unjustified sexism. Heroes and champions may have more vision but not by much. The justification being they were more meticulously trained to spot enemy and do maintain good eyesight for fighting. Almost no one had myopia in 0AD because there were few books and no screens. Priests should have low eyesight because they probably got myopia from reading too much text with poor lighting.

After some time I again managed to play around with the code and finish some other boats and heroes. 1. Biome variants: some trees typical for winter environment provide an "aura", which tells units to use specific visual variants - who would walk in sandals on snow? 2. Another minor update concerns monoxyla: melee units help with rowing, making the boat faster, while ranged units slow it down, but they can fire from the board. 3. Hunters (basic archers) can now swim; while swimming, ranged units can use only melee attacks. 4. Ponies! Cavalry units use smaller horses - only elite riders switch to high ones. I guess this is more historical for the setting. Not that it matters much, but maybe you would like to use the animations.

Too much handicraft at poor lightning? But I agree, their vision should be the same as the inf's.

But not the celtic (gauls) durids. They were trained via oral tradition in the nature, and not by lecturing in a library.

This is something I would like to implement for larger ships - e.g. I have a raft used as a trade ship and drop-off point, but it would make more sense, if it could carry passengers too. On the other hand, turret mechanics used on monoxyla are not suitable. I will check the siege tower code and think about it.

that means more micro. if you think horse archers are op, propose a change to make them weaker, not something that makes them just as strong but more difficult to use, they are already difficult enough. if you want to nerf cav death balls, come up with something that actually nerfs cav death balls. different lines of sight are fine. the cav units stands on a horse, also the cav unit is easier to use this way, especially for nubs. these motivations are good enough for me. anyway, it's not the end of the world.

This is possibly nothing new - boats can be now built with turret mechanics. Units transported by them will sit down unless they have something to attack in range. Currently, the boat also slows down proportionally to the number of passengers.

Another update brings a new unit and a new feature. The unit - Child - acts as a cheaper "civilian" unit, which is less effective at hard works like lumbering and mining, but gathers fruit well. Boys have a bonus to carrying capacity, girls have a higher resistance. As my grandfather always reminded me that Romans found it important to know how to read, write and swim, I always found it somewhat surprising, that in most Rome-themed games not even Velites can swim. This is, of course, not acceptable for a light-infantry-focused faction. Thus, Warriors - both basic and skull-upgraded - are now able to swim. That is, they can traverse deep water with a small penalty to moving speed. A hack was needed in UnitAI component to make the specific animations for idle, moving and attack states. "don't mind us, we're just having a bath" Little update - now I understand how to calculate the depth, so the swimming mode should be triggered correctly.

First, I would like to praise the 0 AD team for making a great engine, as well as for making it so accessible to modders. The vanilla game is very enjoyable, the music is great, even if the AI nearly always massacres my towns. Also the use of JavaScript is a great choice, as I use it recently a lot in my work, so I don't have the bad feeling of playing too much... But I have to admit, being no real fan of AoE series, the game was attractive for me for the modding options. There were no wizards and dragons, so I thought about making some for the game. Download here (currently 18 MB). Currently compatible with version 0.25a only! The file contains a .zip, which can be simply extracted to binaries/data/mods folder. The file is irregularily updated. Parameter for launcher: -mod=scythia The mod basically adds a new faction of Sporians, which are very roughly based on 6th c. Sclaveni, as they are described by Byzantine authors - Sporoi where their mythical ancestors according to Procopius. The fantasy aspect is more important - from rhomphaias and bronze armors to dragons and thunderbolts. I was even thinking about making Red Sonja the faction's main hero. In short, as a "civilization", they are somewhat simplified: units can be trained only in the central building and the fortress. There are no barracks, no stables (cavalry needs the Corral), no "female citizen" unit (all units choose a gender variant randomly at training). On the other hand, basic infantry is cheaper than most units in vanilla and trains slightly faster. Units can also be healed in houses (3 at a time) from the beginning. The mod is far from being finished, but I wanted to ask for advice about some features. 1. Instead of temples, the faction can build an idol: a wooden statue of a god. As in Age of Mythology, the player has to choose one: Peraunu or Welinˀsu, which provide units with different upgrades. The idol decays in time, but can be repaired by a shaman (the healer/magician unit) dancing around. The decay is provided by a global aura, which is "researched" automatically when an idol is built. Even if there is a limit of one idol per player, the aura destroys any subsequent idol, if the first is lost. Is it thus possible to "unresearch" it or otherwise deactivate a global aura? 2. One of the functions of both idol and its shaman is to serve as a drop-off point for a new resource called "skulls". I got an inspiration for this new functionality from an older game called Sacrifice, where you collect souls of defeated enemies to strengthen yourself. Defeated enemy combat units have a chance to drop an "intact skull", which can be gathered by your units and brought to the shaman or idol. Only skulls from enemies (technically, the dropped skull is an entity granted to the player, who killed the unit) can be collected. The skulls can be used to upgrade your units, e.g. with rhomphaias or dragons (btw, now you need a fully trained Champion and 30 skulls for one). The problem is the gathering itself: to prevent combat formations from running away from battle, I set the scripts so, that only one skull is gathered at once. Also, for some reason, the units are unable to find nearby skulls dropped by dead enemies for gathering. Why does the gathering AI ignore them? 3. Concerning the dragons: update removes the flying ability. Flight is unwieldy to control - they land and take off again each time a new target is selected, they don't always correctly face their targets, and can use only a melee attack. The flying script is somewhat hard to follow, and it somehow overrides attack AI of the unit. Is it possible to set up a simpler flying motion using the UnitMotion component? Or at least without the circling around coded for the P-51? 4. Another solution for the dragon problem would be to make it a "packing" unit: it could have a walking mode, in which it would use a melee attack, and a flying/floating mode, in which it would throw down flames. The problem was, that packing uses a new entity, so a new visual is generated. This affects only the rider, which is small anyway, but I plan to add more variation to the mount too. Is it possible to use the packing feature and preserve entity visuals? 5. There is also a horse archer upgrade, available to Raiders with the Peraunu idol. As I looked for a way, how to make them capable of shooting on the move, I made them to contain two entities, i.e. a horse with a dummy attack and a "turret". Visually, it is not ideal, as the 1. prop did not place the turret entity correctly unless it was parented to root, and 2. it dies separately from the horse. As I saw that some nomadic factions are in making, are there any more elegant solutions for such a feature? Thanks for any advice, and feel free to try the mod if you wish.

... that if ranged attacks were made to always deal damage to the intended target, lag during battles could be cut down significantly, with little effort? Consequences on gameplay would be minimal, and other adjustments would also be possible, like varying damage depending on distance.

Mayne moving the helper to c++ would be enough

Micro is the same except cav can get distracted more easily…because they have a longer vision range Again, this is about how long the range should be, and isn’t about whether that range should be the same or different than inf

I don’t mind vision ranges being reduced, because once everyone is p3, I get the impression that everyone can see everything. Perhaps the game is a bit predictable at that stage, but also I find it very hard to surprise anyone. maybe vision range upgrades for p1 and p2 should be considered along with a broad unification and reduction.

Just so that everyone here has the same knowledge about what was discussed in the past here are some cross links: [gameplay] Revisit Vision (and Ranged Attack) ranges : https://code.wildfiregames.com/D76 [gameplay] unify unit vision range : https://code.wildfiregames.com/D3487 [gameplay] lower soldier vision range : https://code.wildfiregames.com/D3486 [gameplay] increase vision of support units : https://code.wildfiregames.com/D3776

no, I didn't change my mind, I just don't agree with you, even if you insist. be cool with that, we won't always be all in agreement.

ok but how does this patch change micro?? its the same actions per minute. If anything it makes infantry better, not cavalry. So it is noob friendly. Noobs might not know why they cannot stop cavalry, why they lose so much. Its because the cavalry see their spearmen long before the spearmen see cavalry. This is not making the learning curve steeper: it is balancing infantry and cavalry vision. A very small change to gameplay. Stop making it something it is not.

cavalry already needs more micro than inf, and that's a reason why noobber players sometimes only play inf, and gameplay gets a bit boring under that level of skill. I'd like that level to go down rather than see it pushed up. I'm constantly saddened by people trying to make the learning curve of the game steeper, like you are doing, because 0AD actually has a good design document, that says that importance of high APM should not be stressed, but rather diminished when possible (understood, @real_tabasco_sauce?).

It turns up that there is a fault with the IPV6 gateway of Arch. After I reverted back to IPV4 it worked. I found these two lines in another thread and they solved the problem. Thanks anyways!

In sum, after being asked multiple times for reasons why cav should have different vision ranges than inf, people have put forward the below reasons. Realism—Cav have a higher vantage point. The argument goes that they sit higher so they can see over objects and just see farther. But standing next to a wall doesn’t stop them from seeing through it so the “seeing over objects” part is inconsistent at best. No one seems to care about the “just able to see farther” part or thinks that it justifies a >10% vision greater range. Even so this realism argument is hard to justify in a world where units can’t see farther than the length of a football field. Champions—Champs should be able to see farther. This isn’t a reason for different vision ranges for cav and inf. This is a reason for CS vs champs. I also think it’s reasoning (is dubious at best, especially when Micro—shorter vision will mean more micro. This keeps getting repeated so I’ll directly address: this has nothing to with whether cav or inf should have farther vision. It’ll be an impact of a change. Please state why cav should be easier to play and have less micro than inf. Again, the goal is to unify vision ranges. The length of that range is a separate topic. Women are a separate topic and will be addressed elsewhere

Poster Name: seeh Lobby Name: seeh Reporting this player: Petreo @user1 BTW i tried to layout it pretty with table. but difficult. for e.g. i cant delta a table, can't add rows, cant delete column's. i tried my best. i think its readable. commands.txt metadata.json

I don't need more excitement when controlling cav. it's already micro intensive enough.

I still can't find one good reason to not reduce vision of cavalry. here are some reasons to equalize infantry and cavalry vision to 80: general infantry/cavalry balance spearmen more likely to successfully reach or trap cavalry slightly easier for spearcav to chase down ranged cavalry. level playing field for archers versus archer cav (for example in a camel rush) champion cavalry no longer see 96 meters (massive compared to 80, see my pics), slightly easier to defeat. scout towers more relevant overall more surprising and exciting gameplay.

XD. Please, no homing missiles.

a couple of meters, assuming the earth is a perfect sphere. For all practical purposes, this is a negligible difference. I am not reducing all vision range, just cavalry. No this is not a bottomless pit, because I reduced it to 80 meters and no more. I prefer something less for all soldiers, but this is another discussion. Are you just opposed to changing the game? ? no it doesn't mean more micro. It means the same micro in less time. shall I make a poll?

Women need a smaller range of vision to provide harassment by the cavalry, especially in the first minutes of the game, increasing their range of vision would be tragic in the current scenario. Currently it is very easy to open the map, in a few seconds you discover all the features of the map and also how the enemy is behaving just using cavalry on enemy borders. Making a general reduction of the range of vision, the player will have to scan the map for new resources, mainly hunting in the first few minutes, watchtower becomes much more important, new CC builds are encouraged, technologies and vision auras like "sibylline books" would again have a good importance, etc.. I'm guessing a number here, but I think something like 40 range would be pretty good to start with.

women reduced vision is indeed weird and poorly justified. there has already been discussion on this, but no patch yet for what I remember.

Right, ridiculous to be able to see moon and stars. A simple Pythagoras can show you the difference isn't enough to "make sense" For me this a matter about the nature of the game, and I object to any reduction of vision range as this is a bottom less pit. If the precedent already only needs such a meek reason when will this stop?

No, commentators have conflated purpose and examples of why that might be a good purpose. The purpose is clearly stated by OP and on Phab. See below for examples. Other commentators have latched onto the cav discussion of why it may be problematic while ignoring the fact that that discussion is a sideshow and that this patch just seeks to unify vision ranges. The "counterproposal" is completely irrelevant as it has nothing to do with vision ranges much less the actual topic of whether vision ranges should be unified. Still--no one here has put forward a reason why the vision ranges should be different across units.

I think in the long term, the argument that comes closest to reality should be given the most weight. also because it is then easier to understand intuitively. (We should make all changes in such a way that ideally they can also be understood intuitively. There are many details in this game. Sometimes too many for me.) ok, i learned camels see 12 meter more. is that realistic? ok both have the same eyes. and the land in we are playing is mostly flat maybe. I think at first a beginner thinks maybe everything sees about the same distance. maybe (BTW i like it because i started rushes more often ok. not important). i learned (from @letsWaveBook) better to hit because larger footprint than archer. whats about the price? ah Cav is a camel + archer on top? but its counted as 1 unit. hmm (fun: way not sit down fight as archer and eat the horse ) . maybe you want discuss about the price? thats feels for me understood intuitively better maybe.

None of this disputes the validity of a unified vision range. You just want longer vision ranges. That isn’t the purpose of the proposal.

Are the imposters good players? Is this finally my chance to "defeat" a 1600 rated player?

which os? ach linux? sudo pacman -S net-tools

https://code.wildfiregames.com/rP27023

This just isn’t true. In A23 they were usable (and very good, in fact) but not OP like they are now. Your axiomatic statement also suggests that inf should be OP in p3 just because they are useful in p1 right now. This just isn’t a reason for/against the proposal. Please state a reason why cav should have longer vision than infantry—because no one here has given one yet. In my opinion, cav already have the benefit of speed which helps them escape (or entirely avoid) bad fights and chase good fights, dps which helps them conduct fights, and health which helps them conduct and escape fights. I find it very difficult to say cav should also have longer vision that will allow them to decide if a fight, which they already gave all the natural advantages in, should start or continue

count me as well. I don't see benefit in the added micro for exploring and handling horse archers. those things are already noob-unfriendly. many have talked about why, he may just agree. besides, your own motivations are very weak.

Camel rushes are mainly viable because the Ptolemaic player has a better economy and can create the camels in unmatched numbers. In the scenario editor I matched an infantry archer against an cavalry archer in a duel and my experience is that the infantry archer won more often than it lost. Cavalry are units with a bigger footprint and are easier to hit. This (partially) offsets their higher HP. If cavalry late game deathballs needed to be nerfed, it would rather suggest to remove the+10% health upgrade. Furthermore the extra vision probably affect cavalry more in the early game than in the late game. Also, the player with the most cavalry might not always be the one benefiting the most from the extra vision. If I had only half as much cavalry as my opponent, I would very much like my cavalry to see the enemy cavalry from a larger range and escape. I don't think that reducing their vision actually solves the problem you are aiming at. However since I haven't tested it I can't say if less vision for the cavalry makes the game better or worse.

I don't see the issue. the problem whith cavalry death balls is not vision. I guess we can equalize the vision ranges of cav and inf, but the way it is now is ok by me.

Suggestion Random gold rush.

Yeah, rewriting all that seems like a huge project, so I get that part of the argument, but personally I don't think the modability factor should play a role here (and I like to make mods). The question is who wants to mod a game that is not functioning correctly? not doing optimization only because someday someone might want to change it seems to me like a bad tradeoff. If there are ways to optimize the javascript part that should of course be preferred, but if the only way to fix that would be to reduce some of the modability, then that is the sacrifice that has to be done (imo).

Hello! My first post here. Can someone make the Canyon of Death (or Death Canyon, idk because my game is in portuguese) scenario as a random map?