Leaderboard

Hey everyone, I am writing this post to let you know I will become mostly unavailable in the three coming weeks starting Tuesday. "All we have to do is decide what to do with the time that is given to us." It's an opportunity for me to regain some of the energy to keep working on this project and to rest in general. I'll be at the open source experience in November in Paris and at the CDL in Toulouse so they will be my only 0ad-related tasks Social Media might be a bit silent too for a while. If you see people having issues there, don't hesitate to help/direct them to the forums. I count on everyone of you to help make A27 a success and to be nice when I'm gone, and I hope to see you all soon. See you soon folks,

I will add another point, the best defense against cavalry is also a dense formation. The success of pikemen during the Middle Ages was due to their formation and their training to fight in such order. Ancient pikemen weren't created to face cavalry but infantry. Roman legionaries were very resilient to cavalry charges while not using any spears. Parthians and Sarmatians used horse archers to weaken their lines before any charge and even with that, they struggled to break the formation.

In fact, people only pay attention to one aspect. They don't notice that the most advantageous point of the spearman and pikeman against the cavalry is not that they are easier to attack the cavalry, but the cavalry is not easy to attack them. Now I want to increase the base damage of the spearman and pikeman , adjust the damage multiplier of spearman and pikeman to cavalry to 1.25, but at the same time adjust the damage multiplier of cavalry to spearman and pikeman to 0.75.

I am inclined that it is not that the spearman and pikeman can kill the cavalry faster, but that the spearman and pikeman are not easily killed by the cavalry, so as long as the cavalry adopts the attack-disengagement tactic, and repeats this, it can effectively attack the infantry, Especially its side and rear, this time highlights the important role of ranged infantry (especially archers) against cavalry in reality, and in order to prevent enemy cavalry from directly attacking ranged infantry, you need to make melee infantry form a box, Protects ranged infantry.

yes it was a symlink. a symlink with strange name. idk if the symlink was broken. when i have deleted it, the problem was not there anymore (October 16).

I think one common reason that error can happen: https://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/6586

Unfortunetly one missclick erased my whole answer to you. I keep my first opinion in this matter. This is not a community problem. It´s just a few op player's problem. We don't even have TG rank points wich means the worst can be happen with an unknown players is realizing he's better than you expected and the next time you will know this. I agree losing 1v1 ranked match against a smurf account it's unfair and should be prevented some way. I can understand frustration of someone who is trying hard to lvl up his rank points and got deceived by some smurf. But this is not the common case. Better use same tactic and play only with known accounts. Considering the whole 0ad situation as game, we should be thinking in ways to make huge performance improvements, gui/lobby enhacements, creating some legal frame to use the money we have to pay some programmers or do something with that money so it doesn't just get devalued in some bank account, etcétera.... Showing account's age on profile it's the best effort-benefit ratio to void smurfs Having this excellent open source game and how much potential it has to be the Worldwide Best RTS game in genre by far but it seems some weak points that can't be fixed make the whole project roaming in a dead end... Honestly it makes me feel kinda sad for the few people getting involved Can't be more agree with you

I don't think infantry should have difficulty chasing them down.

I think Han will need a couple nerfs in other areas. The farms are not what makes the civ strong.

I did and it didn't work. but i've never been a good boomer. han food eco is better than other civ's. this was expected.

Wow I have never noticed people doing this before. Maybe I should try it. Is it op enough for han to need a nerf? to be honest I think the main thing to nerf from han would be crossbow. Changing cost from 50 f 50 w to 50 f 40 w 10 m would make it more expensive to mass them, and they would be similar to swordsmen in power/cost setup.

If have 5% of population and any possibility of build anything.

i have explained it in the feedback , its the smaller farms 3 per each that increases the gathering efficiency by almost 10% we used to do that trick with bigger farms we put 3 per fram instead of 5 and that proved to be better , but alsothat will mean bigger numbers of farms more used space and easier raid and more wood spent for famrs. While Hans get that feature by standard because of smaller farms unlike other civs.

my map

I could look into it at my return. I'll put it in my ToDo list.

I suppose we'd need some extra code in the the Foundation component that takes a list of builders and ask them to garrison in.

Would require some Python but could be nice.

I prefer natural counters too, and like you're saying, what's important to me is to have a well developed counter system, not just lots of similar units where whoever sends more units wins. With 3 damage and armor types it is totally possible to have a robust counter system without damage multipliers, and I think we should do more to take advantage of that. For instance, the javelineers could have high pierce armor and low crush armor, making them good against archers and jav cavalry but vulnerable to slingers. Besides line units and counter units, etc i think some units should be more specialized and others more all purpose. I'd make the slingers really good at damaging armored infantry but really vulnerable to cavalry, while javelineers would be less somewhat effective against infantry but a bit less vulnerable to cavalry. Likewise pikemen would be more specialized against cavalry than spearmen but more vulnerable to archers.

the patch already exists (since A16) and 0 A.d has long since decided to drop Age of kings to be more of a hybrid.

In the future there could also be Cimbrians, who fit more neatly in the part 1 timeline. They would be a bit similar to Suebi, but more nomadic and maybe a celtic influenced roster with more armoured units.

Maybe could do like the Hyrule mod and have both heroes and officer units.

yes, especially if you are worried about raids. I certainly don't think this is what makes Han considered strong by some.

I just voted. Because some of the merge requests are "package deals" I had to say no to some that had some things I liked.

That would mean that 1 woman per farm has a higher gather rate per woman than 5 women per farm, right? I have heard of this before, but I had assumed it was not in the game.

It could be due to diminishing returns, I didn't bother checking that yet.

It is worth considering that it is easy to download and that the community was already somewhat split by those skill levels anyway. It would be nice to add some kind of news rundown in the lobby that advertises some recent changes in the mod, @guerringuerrin was manually doing this by hosting a game with such a title, but I think one made automatically in the lobby chat would be great.

I could do it, if community is not too rough if changes they don't like get merged My plan would be to leave 5 days - 1 week of discussion for merge requests then merge if opinion is not very negative. (for the community: please remember it's easy to undo a change!) Btw I think balance could get in much better shape if one competent person was in charge and made most of the changes. Because, only a small amount of proposals can get in if all of them need a real consensus making everyone happy, and the gameplay has very little changes. I think I have good grasp on balance and could fill the role.

no work i vote for delete you

Mix both can work. if it depends on an artificial intelligence that receives and mixes all this data, in the long run it could be that we do use the same tags and represent the game.

I think if the developers and the community feel that secondary accounts should be banned. 0.AD must reconfirm it. Otherwise we remove this rule and in the profile of the players it appears the year of creation of the account. Many players who make secondary accounts do not do so out of bad intentions. A rule not understood is a rule rarely respected. It is therefore necessary to better understand what bothers you in the use of secondary accounts. We are on the internet, a digital identity means nothing. Today I'm Dakara and in 2 months I can change my nickname. Besides, is it possible or not possible to request the deletion of a 0AD account from the lobby? --- Regarding this wall I don't really see the point, yes it's quickly fun to know who is hiding behind a secondary account. It's a little gossip, so ultimately useless information. The only interest in knowing who owns a second account is if this account has very bad behavior. And in any case, the hosts are free to ban them from their game. ---- But frankly it's far from being the major concern on 0AD. The games are more and more elitist, the players disagree with each other and the ddos is always present (we even start to wonder if it's not just the game that bugs). From my first games on 0AD so 2017 I used secondary accounts and I didn't do @#$% in my games. What I think irritates people the most is the feeling of not seeing the names of known players, they are potentially on a secondary account. The lack of reference. -- Insofar as the lobby is managed by USER1, he is the manager, he applies the rules he wants as long as they are written. But is it possible to change these rules? by making them softer or harder.

@G.O.A.T It's ok to keep the list since @Player of 0AD likes it. However, I would like you to put a justification or proof or even your logic for thinking that these 2 accounts are the same person. This will make your list much much more convincing and there will be a lot less angry arguments. Is my request reasonable? For example, how did you come to the conclusion that weirdjokes in phyzic? Did you monitor his IP address or did someone snitch on him? If you add a sentence of explanation after everyone then the moderators will find your list much more useful and take actions. Currently, a list without any proofs is simple a weird joke. What do you think? @Norse_Harold @Stan` @guerringuerrin @rm -rf @Dakara

This is an adapted map, this time for Version 25. I have used a new system, that produces deterministic areas for a base, and turn to random terrain outside the base. In the multiplayer-mode all bases should have the same terrain, the location of the mines are also on the same place. Same applies to fauna like muskoxes and wolves, they are at predetermined locations.carpathian_2.zip Just the trees and textures are always random. For different sizes of maps and amount of players i have made several predetermined terrains, more complex one, if the size of the map is sufficient. carpathian_2.zip

What differentiates civilians are the civ bonuses, team, heroes, unique upgrades and units available. There are a lot of ideas scattered around the forum. Athens : Carthage Britons Séleucides Gauls idea : Perses : Rome : Sparta :

Am I the only one who hates the hard counter systems present on each unit like in age of empire?

While the code is open source and redistributable, I am not sure they could (or at least should) (ab)use the same name (0 A.D.) and logo. Like CentOS / Red Hat, same code but different name and logo.

You can always do city buildings and using deploymacy you can decide not to attack other player. Other things can be introduced when we have campaigns introduced in the game. But as of now you 0ad is not the game for that.

Maybe the ram builders would automatically garrison upon completion of the ram. Just an idea for later perhaps.

Speaking as someone who does way more micro than average…this would annoy me. Have fun microing this when you make 3 rams mid battle, have to micro the exact number of units (away from the fight) to stand idle next to the siege factory (which will make your idle hot key way less useful), click your view away from the battle to see if the rams finished producing, click back to the battle because you looked too soon, click back away to the battle to see if the rams are ready, garrison the perfect number of units into 3 separate rams (no shift clicking because then you might over garrison and leave one or more rams immobile), manually direct the rams to wherever you want them to go (because rally points will no longer work for siege), click back to battle to see that half your army followed a retreating unit and now you’re dead. This is also be one of the very few instances where micro is forced and it is forced away from the action. There are a ton of hot key/group control features that exist or are request just so that you don’t have to needlessly click/view away from the center of action. Giving an extra boost to siege with garrisoned units makes sense. Making siege useless without garrisoning sounds terribly frustrating

Anything that requires siege to be garrisoned sounds incredibly annoying...It's micro that a lot of know we should do now but don't because it's a pain and clunky

This sounds interesting.

Siege towers should make you able to unload units over walls imo. When clicking unload you should be prompted with a choice where to with a simple area highlight around the mouse pos. But an increased capture rate makes sense too. Imo rams need bonus attack damage against gates and catas need their splash damage back.