Leaderboard

I think one of change we should introduce is dynamically changing player name and player placement values while chaning the AI diffculty level. Example Scenario: You are playing 1v7 againt AI and you have selected 3 AI as hard and 4 AI as very hard. Currently we show: Instead of this we should show: Right now values are selected in background but no value is shown on Front-end side. @rossenburg FYI. Should be a feature in your mod.

MarcAurel vs borg metadata.json commands.txt

0ad_enemy_scoutingsound.mp3

I have had this error since A24. When putting multiple Barracks in one control Group, one or more often stop working. Happens in booming and when rebuilding larger Batches of Population. Say I'd have 10 Barracks and want to produce 30 Soldiers. Often it ends up with 6 Barracks doing Batches of 5, instead of all 10 doing 3. Same with Blacksmiths, If i have 3 in one control group. If i then just select the symbols, they often get queued all on one Blacksmith, instead of spreading it evenly. Probably this is a known bug, but didn't find it. WIl it be fixed or do I have to always double check if everything works and manually use it? Maybe it would also be nice that the hotkey that shows the health of a unit or building would also show if that building is Idle or in use.

HI! IIRC there was some work about adding aarch to A26, but don't know its status. Maybe @Stan` has more information.

Hi! Thanks for the report! My first thought is an out of video memory (because of new art). But not sure. Could you enable debug checks via adding the following lines to your user.cfg and reproduce the bug? renderer.backend.debugcontext = "true" renderer.backend.debugmessages = "true" renderer.backend.debuglabels = "true" renderer.backend.debugscopedlabels = "true" Also could try to decrease the textures quality in options to low?

There are lots of 50 unit army pushes now. It’s the most common form of inf rush. Hiding behind a CC is basically the only way to defend if you aren’t already prepared. This very frequently happens in 1v1s that last long enough for one player to reach 100 pop If you lose your only CC in 1v1 it’s almost certainly gg. The connection you are trying to draw between cheaper CCs and CCs’ defensive abilities is strained. To the extent your concern actually is valid it should be dealt with by increasing the difficulty of making a new CC (ie increasing cost or build time). You’re making a ton of assumptions based on things you think (but don’t know) will happen. If any of your assumptions are wrong it could eliminate the utility of an entire unit class (siege), frustrate the entire purpose of making CCs cheaper, and change the entire meta to something unknown and different.

The second edition of 0 A.D. Friendly Tournament Series has started! Here is the list of players: ValihrAnt (2345) Feldfeld (2201) borg- (2169) weirdJokes (1913) Edwarf (1861) LetswaveaBook (1815) Dakara (1778) PhiliptheSwaggerless (1642) 011235813 (1598) MarcAurel (1547) alre (1500) chocapoca (1493) seeh (1150) Bete (1108) ________________________________ The tournament has a swiss format. You can follow the tournament in challonge https://challonge.com/sv36zmko We have the pairings for the first round: @ValihrAnt vs @Philip the Swaggerless @Feldfeld vs @rm -rf @borg- vs @MarcusAureliu#s @Player of 0AD vs @alre @Edwarf vs @chocapoca @LetswaveaBook vs @seeh @Dakara vs @BeTe ________________________________ The deadline for the first round is Sunday 13, 23:59 UTC Please try to organize your match as soon as possible using forum private messaging! Beware of timezone differences. Once the match is over, please announce the result in this thread (possibly hiding it in spoiler) and provide the replay. Please message me personally if your opponent doesn't answer you after 2-3 days. You will find the precise game settings in the first post of the thread. Verify them before readying up in the lobby.

They deal a lot of damage and are fast. They are quite fun to use but are not always a fantastic meatshield. Well I believe the answer to the discussion title has turned out to be "Yes" and "yes"

my best reference; -I think that with slightly browner ceilings and slightly beige walls, better? (

Maybe you click too often, or your batch size is too big, if you plan to make batches of three and they suddenly are batches of 5. Blacksmiths: Multiplayer lag can cause that issue. Maybe click a bit slower

guys I have a concern: currently a good half of the online players have never adopted the community mod. I hope when the next iteration is released, a big effort is made to have them use the mod as well, otherwise half of the players will br playing one game, and the other half will be playing another, significantly different one.

nice. never noticed. mid game is currently the calmest moment of a game, I wouldn't mind making aggression easier. also keeping armies under fire is expensive, no less than having farms under threat. and finally because the CC is cheaper, it makes sense to supplement it with defensive buildings to defend it from hordes of slingers, or to lose it to them (it's cheaper to rebuild and it's cheaper to get a backup one). this I oppose. a fort that you can build in the hearth of your enemy territory is a p3 building to me.

Maybe "Player Placement": "AI: Petra Bot (hard, aggressive, ...)" would make more sense?

vinme, read through the lobby Terms of Use and tell me you haven't broken any of those rules. Can't do both of those and still be honest. Also, we lobby moderators can PM the evidence relevant to each punishment on request.

ok I have forks now for moving the army camp to p2 for rome and for giving pikes damage, reducing armor some. If you would like to view them, they are on my fork previously linked. I have a question for you all: Should I add a change to arrow count to the CC_territory cost merge request? (***we already voted on this, hence why I ask you all). currently, CC's max arrows are 1 less than a fortress (23 vs 24). With the change making them cheaper, I think their max arrows should significantly reduced. *this does not in theory effect early defense from rushes because you are usually only able to garrison a few soldiers in the CC for arrows at that time anyway. I propose to lower the max arrows to 15. (and the same for colonies). This should help with concerns of "CC dropping." I will add a fix to sentry towers (<max arrows> should be 4 and not 3, currently the 3rd soldier does not add an additional arrow)

Interesting idea, but needs more development.

Well, it was very unrealistic the way it was implemented. If, in a more historical manner, a unit would not be able to try capturing (either machines or buildings) while there is an enemy unit nearby, the fight would be tactically interesting.

the increased contrast here is good. But, yes, a little more brown will be good to further distinguish them from the gauls.

-Siguiendo las referencias de @Obskiuras , hice los techos más claros : Referencias Suevas; (Hechos por @Obskiuras) Cambio en los techos Suevos; (Si luego alguien quiere cambiar la tonalidad de los techos ,no me opondré) ¿Qué opinan? @wowgetoffyourcellphone @Lopess @Stan` @Ultimate Aurelian @Mr.lie @real_tabasco_sauce @Carltonus Disculpen las molestias*

fertility isn't implemented (yet?), Delenda Est mod partially emulates it with aurae for farmland

There is a small change in the rules. I have seen quite a lot of evidence of the wood generation in Nubia biome being sometimes very imbalanced, with some games where a player starts with no forest in his territory. Game 3 of previous edition between me and Valihrant was restarted because of this reason. As of right now I don't have the time to program a proper balanced wood generation. As such, I submitted a new version of feldmap removing this biome to mod.io, but I do not expect it to be signed before the start of the tournament, which means it won't be available for download. So for now, we stick in the current version of feldmap, I do not want to confuse players with having to manual download, so manual download is not available. Instead, there are new rules for biome selection: - the biome for the matches should be random - if it turns out "Nubia" is chosen, one player may call a restart (please do so before one minute of gametime) - if a game was restarted because of this reason, one player may force to select "Temperate" biome for next game. If you are not sure if a biome is "Nubia", you can pause the game and check the "Objectives" window, the biome is written in there. __________________________________________ On another note, we have enough players to have a swiss system. I will still host it on challonge as it looks like it handles it just fine. If you don't know how the swiss system works, you may research it on the internet. I set the first tiebreaker to be the Median-Bucholz, and the next tiebreaker to be wins against tied opponents. https://kb.challonge.com/en/article/rank-and-tie-break-statistics-1p5f7y4/ Players will be seeded using their ratings. You may see a preview of the tournament here: https://challonge.com/sv36zmko/standings of course, registrations are still open. Here I did the seedings from memory but when registrations close I will check players ratings and make final seedings. If the number of participants is odd, one player will receive a Bye (free win) each round. Normally it's the player lowest in standings that didn't receive a Bye who gets it. Unfortunately, challonge doesn't offer a column indicating player elo in the standings as far as I know. You may tell me if you want to see the ratings right next to player nickname (like we see in a game lobby in 0 A.D.). If someone wants to make a custom template for 0 A.D. swiss tournaments they may contact me.

Today, I was testing the latest SVN27187, and when I attacked an enemy city center and produced a sergeant in my new barracks, I got a game error crash: Assertion failed: "! m_InsideFramebufferPass" Location: devicecommandcontext.cpp:349 (Renderer::Backend::GL::CDeviceCommandContext::UploadBuffer I am using Windows 10 64bit and 8G.

@vladislavbelovI tested the patch you provided and it solved the problem, thank you.

Actually, it is technically this: https://matrix.to/#/#0ad-unofficial:matrix.org

I've joined the new room, hopefully it's the correct one. The link is here if anyone needs it: !vqjZdSBF0n6ZQcrUvn:chat.shawnsorbom.net

yes, instant would allow for instant anti ram, maybe a couple other cheesy strategies. I vote for not quite instant, but close to it. like 2 - 6 seconds, maybe 3 sec for inf and 6 sec for cav is good. In this case, they should also keep the batch train bonus. In general though, I think this is how mercenaries should play. I remember we had discussion of this before a25, but nothing became of it. how do we feel about 100 and 150 metal? This is the metal equivalent of their food/wood costs. I think it is perfectly fine because the fact they train at rank 2 and very quickly should be enough to justify the cost being metal. Also, I disagree with reza_math points 2 and 3. 4 could go either way. It would be nice for mace to get a more helpful antiram, but there certainly are more pressing balance issues. maybe this, but Carthage get a -10/15 percent mercenary cost team bonus? If not, civ bonus.

1- For me, we need to absoluty change the concept of mercenaries. They can't recolt, i'm totaly agree for this point. About the cost i want have big cost like 100 for infantery and 150 for cavalery. All mercenary is rank 2 recruitment is instant, the units are not formed, we pay for their service. Limit the number of mercenary by 50 for each player (sound good or not?) One tech for recruit mercenary rank 3 in phase 3 in castle or CC. Like 500 FOOD and 500 METAL cost tech. I would also appreciate that the initial mines be less loaded in resources (5000-> 2000) so that the eco is more relocated and risky, but that's another subject but it can nerve the mercenaries a little. 2- It it true that it is frustating and make good advatnage. But i think we see that like a bonus of civ (only 2 civ have this advantage so it ok), maybe we need more balance all champions. Some seem too weak or situational. Take care to don't starndardizes all civilisations. 3- I think nop, if you look point 2. Ptol and Sélucid have good bonus with production heroe in CC. So it make a malus effect to balance the advantage of the point 2. 4 - Noboby forces the infantry to serve only as anti ram. i find the current situation satisfied. No easily accessible sword infantery that'is ok. It is charming to know that the Macedonians have this weakness.

Kind of related: Should war dogs have a Sentry stance, where they bark when enemies are within a given distance from them?

In fact, it does not necessarily need to be a shelter. It can be that the army gathers to the hero. The retreat is not a scattered operation without command, but usually follows the order of the commander.

strongly agree on the 'retreat to barracks' command, as already stated in previous discussions.

I could envision such a mechanic with battalions. If a battalion is completely surrounded and its numerical strength depleted by 50%, the battalion has a 50/50 chance of "surrendering" to the enemy player or fighting to the death (with bonus attack, but less armor). The ratio could tip more toward fighting to the death for elite and champion battalions, while basic ranked battalions are more likely to surrender.

giving the hero a whole development is interesting like an rpg like Warcraft.

Yes, if ranged infantry stray away from melee infantry, they are hunted by fast units. And this does not contradict the statement that they have a different role than melee infantry. I think the question to tackle here is: in most ancient armies, melee infantry was the main force, and ranged infantry and cavalry were supporting melee infantry or having specific roles. And then, there were some armies which relied on particular tactics involving large number of ranged units (Han) or cavalry (maybe Scythians some day? ). How to make sure all are viable strategies? I guess hard counter attack bonuses are necessary to implement this. But please please please, do not give huge multipliers in such a way that unit x rips unit y apart but barely scratches the armor of unit z. And please keep them realistic (spears hurt cavalry because they are longer than other melee weapons and can reach the rider) and/or historical (elephants were defeated by javelins in most accounts). What would really be great also is: 1) Have bonuses to formations. Scattered infantry are vulnerable to cavalry charges. Clustered formations are vulnerable to missiles. Hoplites were well protected from both melee and ranged attack because they locked shields together. Pike phalanx was only effective in formation. Roman Testudo formation was almost impervious missiles. 2) Have aura effect. Camels and elephants need stench aura which prevents or weakens cavalry charges. Elephants need fear aura which weakens enemy attack. Chariots need trample. I think most of these are present in DE.

There is one thing they do which melee units cannot do: you cannot commit all melee units to battle at the same time because melee units need to almost be next to units, their availability for fighting is restricted to the battle line, so they spend more time manuevering. Ranged units may be commited in much higher numbers simultaneously if positioned well. They do not have to move until threatened directly or there is nothing left to shoot. This gives them and also their counters different roles than pure melee infantry.

You use ranged units for their range. They can deal damage while not taking any damage, while melee units can't do that. Honestly, if players only use ranged units in specific situations or as a small contingent to back up their melee troops, then I am okay with that since that's how they were used in antiquity anyway.

@Freagarach do you know how hard it is to tweak the attack detection code to trigger a ping?

Rather than a sound, a ping on the minimap (or both) might be better in case someone has several outposts.

Perhaps, but only for the first time an enemy enters that outpost's vision range.

Much of the discussion about differentiating the civilisations in the game is right now focused on small changes to enable different strategies for the different civilisations. But I want to open a discussion here if those changes are not a bit too "small". If we look at other successful strategy games (in the widest sense) be it card games as magic the gathering or competitive online games as league of legends, we see that they enable the player to have completely different playstyles, which is probably why so many people like to play these games -> everyone finds a playstyle they like. For me 0ad is at the moment more comparable to chess; you can play different strategies, but it's still chess and always kind of the same, regardless which strategy you choose. I know that the civs kind of already represent different playstyles, but what if we would really accentuate that? I think vanilla AD could learn much from Hyrule conquest in that regard. So accentuate the playstyles of each civ, but also give them weaknesses through that instead of trying to balance them in every phase of the game. here just some links to interesting videos who touch upon this topic in game design: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXQzdXPTb2A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5Uk13mQdm0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QuKpJTUwwY But to come to an end here, I very much agree with sera in this discussion here https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4273#182067 The thing that would be needed first to do that is a design document about how each civ should play. So feel free to tell me if you agree or disagree on this ( every civ should have a vastly different / unique playstyle). If this was always the goal of the differentiation and I just didn't get the extent of the planned differentiation then please excuse my slow mind. Also independent of your opinion regarding the above, feel free to give your ideas about how to best structure such a collaborative design document creation process, as that may be beneficial nevertheless.

I don't know if such a feature can be implemented, but just for discussion the retreat mode 1 is not bad actually. It reminds me of total war when an army is en route when overwhelmed by an enemy. I guess it could work with a similar trade-off in case: you let your army fly away from combat, but you lose control of them while they disperse in all directions and you have to wait a few minutes to be able to control your units again after their "panic mode". Alternatively, you can decide to retreat your troop manually using your skills and keep full control of your troops. In this case you have 2 strategic options to chose, so it wouldn't be simply an automatization

"Funny" in a good way or "funny" in a bad way? Also, why only send one sentence in response to numerous paragraphs of text? Do you have specific constructive criticism? For example, what would be the consequence of all players applying rules to their games? Then the problematic players wouldn't have anywhere to go? *sniff* Think of the problematic players! Oh, the humanity! Thanks for bumping the thread, at least. That helps advertise the ideas.

I know that we are all looking to diversify civilizations, and I think it is great to focus the civilization on what they do best. However, I think we should avoid narrowing the options available to that civ. Britons, for example: The problem with this is it would make player behavior predictable. I prefer giving britons a great early game, and an average late game. If I can sum up my views on civs in one sentence it is: civilisations should not have playstyles, civilizations should have options, players should make the playstyles. Does this make sense? I think it is good to give each civ a few things they are great at, but not limit player choices because they feel the need to do what is "best" for that civ. I give an example of a bad civ for uniqueness/options balance in a25: Carthaginians. Carthage has one strategy that is "the best", it is almost impossible to counter. Uniqueness should come from unique options and not entire unique strategies.

My two cents as a long time, off and on player: Formations are the one thing I want to see really working above anything else. Formations and unit cohesion were such a big part of ancient warfare that the game really loses a lot of immersion for me in that we see wild mobs of units engaging one another as the default. I would very much like to see formations as the default setting for groups of units. It seems to me that each formation type needs to have bonuses and tradeoffs for units within it. Directional damage would be super. I would very much like to see battlefield tactics become more important, forced even, upon players. Terrain bonuses play a big part of this too. The game is still fun and playable without these features, but I feel that really in the long run the game would be better served if there were more attention paid to how players field their units before, during, and even after battle.

Yes, it would not provide any additional territory until upgraded to the "next gen" CC. Sure, there would be more things to solve. My goal was to start discussion. It could be even possible to build the basic 1st gen CC also in the city phase. In the case that the players would not be motivated enough to go for the later CC's without defensive qualities, there could other bonuses provided.