Leaderboard

I see it as either you implement it with ranges (a simplification), or you consider the transport (more realism). Using both at the same time seems adding conditions over conditions. Only ranges would cause clustered buildings. Besides the reasons already given, I favor (automatic) transport because it implies the need to lay out buildings in a realistic way (to have paths to go between them).

The reports should give an idea about the amount of people that will never post in a game's forum. In any case, I'm saying "won't necessarily have", it's not about solid proof, but about why to risk it, and have an artificial warning. Why not just have a normal Normal. I was surprised about how hard it was, not because it's hard in absolute terms (after all I finished SC2 on Brutal), but because it's hard for a normal level, and if on top of this there's a gap between Sandbox and Very Easy, then some adjustments seem recommendable. RTS in general (https://forums.ageofempires.com/t/honest-discussion-why-do-developers-struggle-to-design-good-rts/32757). Regarding your other questions, more like there's even an effort to remove SP features if they have no point in MP, as I've mentioned has happened in the case of certain techs. It's a state of mind many in the community have. It's not realising that production times 3 times faster than SC2, a clearly competitive game, is not the most enjoyable experience for the casual, which are the vast majority of players. I agree. I think of it more the other way though: ideas and content have to be driven by SP experience, balance and final mechanics by MP, in a way that accommodates enough interesting content so as not to make it dull and MP focused only.

Testing Snow Layer for winter maps. But that prob Will need an extra plane roof mesh

Fixed in ModernGUI https://gitlab.com/4trik/ModernGUI/-/commit/7286640d11c85197e1c345dd720dd0e730b76cd0 Proposed fix for vanilla https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/pulls/8880

I always say, refer to Earth 2150 for a great example of automatic supply lines. In it, units need ammunition, and there’s an ammunition building that produces a unit that automatically goes between that building and units that need ammo. The only thing one does is decide how many of these suppliers one wants, and the army should defend the supply lines. This is a great example of adding realism and novel game mechanics without additional micro. In 0 A.D., it would be similar to the Traders, but if possible even more automatic (a smelter could go to get the ores, a blacksmith could go to get the metal, this maybe going along with buildings having to have some base garrison to be functional). I would have these types of automatic units (Traders included) as a different kind of unit that cannot be selected unless some button is pressed (they are an annoyance most of the time).

Again I love all these ideas, but yeah some of the "bigger" ones my be a little too difficult to implement right now. And we still have a lot of little stuff we can do to touch it up and hopefully make it more enjoyable for more peopel too experenice!

That may be a little too complicated, maybe the raw metal that you have to refine, that might work, you could have your transporters go to a forge, it goes from raw to cooked metal, then it goes to your civic center. But that might make it hard though, even wagon trains or transporters would be hard to manage. It might be better to add in 1 smaller change, then add in 2 changes, instead of doing them at the same time, then you can get used to the one, then lean how to do the other one

This is a freaking awesome video and got me thinking about how pathfinding could simulate crowd and individual behavior.

@Stan` and I have actually started a repo for Empires Besieged here: https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/empires_besieged. The last change was 11 months ago, but I'm working on things in DE (Guptas and Sasanians; a big thank you to @Duileoga and @Lopess) which will directly translate to EB at some point in the future. So, whether EB becomes it's own "game" or an "era" or an "expansion" or a "release" is up for debate. I personally advocate for a "0 A.D. Eras" concept, where players can swap between eras (Empires Ascendant, Empires Besieged, Masters of Bronze, Millennium AD) and only play those civs, or choose to play with all civs available at once.

It's how the follow player works, the only info it has are the actions taken by the player not the actual camera movements. Storing that would be much more costly.

Continuing with the civ decal's next one is hellenic civilizations.

Position: Web Developer Do you understand that Wildfire Games is a non-commercial project, work for 0 A.D. is volunteer, and work is done for free? Yes Do you agree to distribute all your work for Wildfire Games under Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license? Yes Are you sure you are not wanting to work on something programming related? (Then you don't need to send in an application form.) Yes Name: Andrew Long Email: andrewtlong@outlook.com Location: US/East Coast Availability: 5-10, maybe more depending on my workload. Age: 34 Occupation: Managed Service Provider / Web Developer / Founder, Crosswater IT Skills and Experience: 20+ years in the IT industry with web development experience / 10+ years in the MSP industry with self-hosting and development experience / Passion for building, configuring, and deploying servers and hosted applications. Motivation: I love building websites and web applications, and love being able to channel my creative energies into functional projects. I also love RTS games and have really enjoyed 0 AD thus far and being involved in any capacity would be wonderful. Personality: Part technologist, part builder, and part curious tinkerer, I’m happiest when I’m turning complicated challenges into elegant solutions that actually work in the real world. Short Essay: Not sure when, at least a couple years ago when I first stumbled upon 0 AD. I’d love to be involved for multiple reasons: I love RTS games and 0 AD really scratches that itch. Secondly, I’d love to be able to add another project to my portfolio / resume, especially one that I support and believe in. Interests and Hobbies: In my free time, I enjoy building things, whether that’s tinkering with servers and new technology, working on creative projects like theatre and stage production, or experimenting with small home projects like gardening. I’ve always liked learning how systems work and improving them, so even my hobbies tend to revolve around exploring ideas, solving problems, and creating something meaningful. Staff: No. Community: Reddit Favorite Game: Favorite currently is Graveyard Keeper. My favorite of all time is Rise of Nations. Work Examples: Portfolio: https://crosswaterit.com/demos

Hello. I’m not sure if this topic has been brought up before. When we observe a player and select the “Follow Player” mode, my expectation is to get a perspective that closely reflects the player’s actual experience. However all queued units produced from buildings like barracks constantly draw focus to themselves. The camera shifts there and the selection jumps to the newly created unit. After a while this starts to feel like a bug. This becomes especially real during combat moments when I’m trying to follow the player’s micro. As units are being lost, the queued new ones are constantly being produced and the camera keeps getting pulled away, disrupting the viewing experience. I think this is something that needs to be fixed.

How many resource could the wagon/transporter unit take. Maybe 100 base, but there are upgrades that can get it up to 300? Also, I think there should be some changes to the AI, because they build some of their structures at the edge of their territory, and they usually don't have them well defended at the start of the game at least

Thanks for providing evidence to what I think is quite obvious. To add some more, a couple of reviews stating it’s fast-paced: https://blowingupbits.com/2014/02/0-a-d-the-land-between-time/ https://peakd.com/hive-140217/@macchiata/0ad-free-open-source-rts-game--a-gameplay And just to grab one of many posts in this forum, many here mentioning what I think, to the point that “the most competitive players are proposing some pretty extreme things” is stated, and indeed, there one can clearly see what I think is the "state of mind many in the community have" (I never said "all"): https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/130185-training-times-or-why-the-fastest-click-wins/ Here some frustrated players on Reddit, only over the last 3 months (but hey, these people don't exist for the tryharders): https://www.reddit.com/r/0ad/comments/1so1gzp/transition_from_very_easy_easy_is_too_hard/ https://www.reddit.com/r/0ad/comments/1ruix38/example_of_my_very_easy_mode_what/ https://www.reddit.com/r/0ad/comments/1qdf6qz/getting_smashed_fast_in_single_player_demo_a271/ An older post from someone that never had problems with AoE2 (mentioned as a hard game), but for 0 A.D. "just feels like noobs aren't welcomed" (!!!): https://www.reddit.com/r/0ad/comments/1hshm2g/why_is_easy_so_hard/ Indeed I think making things a bit slower would improve the experience for these people and many more, and actually, with this small sample of all the available evidence, I would say one could state that this is a fact. And to repeat myself yet again, this would only happen for a default Normal Preset, the Competitive Preset would leave everything as it is right now, and surely would be the preferred one for MP. Exactly. This is how casuals play. Let alone RTS beginners. This is my main premise.

I think this is a good and valid point. The only way I can make sense of it is by normalizing it in the following way: the game also tells you, “Notice: This game is under development.” Therefore combining these two statements, I conclude that the AI difficulty levels are simply not fully settled yet. And that is exactly what our discussion is about. I agree that new players struggle with Petra. Two of my real-life friends whom I recommended the game to told me exactly this. The first one said something like, “The game looks interesting but I’m getting absolutely destroyed!” After that he never mentioned the game again, so I assume he stopped playing. The other friend told me, “I’m playing on Medium and I haven’t managed to beat it yet.” I then had to respond with something like, “Try Easy or Very Easy, then increase the difficulty as you win.” However, I suspect that a 30year old man who has played many computer games might feel some embarrassment playing on Very Easy. So I assume he stayed on Medium. Also, what I would like to emphasize is that what makes the game hard for beginners is not the game’s core mechanics themselves. A new player can easily understand what building a stable means or the difference between archers and spearmen. They can easily build towers, chop wood, and so on. The real issue is that they don’t understand the need to race against time. They don’t seem to care that their units spend a long time walking between distant wood lines and the storehouse. Or rather, they haven’t yet developed that sense of urgency. Petra behaves almost robotically in that sense, it is programmed to be. But what I’ve also observed from my beginner friends is that, they take their time. They’re basically on a picnic. They build a barracks, maybe produce a few units and then their attention drifts elsewhere. They think one barracks is enough: “I need soldiers, I built a barracks, done.” The idea of building 2, 5, or 7 barracks doesn’t even occur to them, which is understandable. They wander around, enjoy the map and the atmosphere, until they get attacked around the 10-minute mark and lose. Therefore since the root of the problem with beginner guy vs. Petra is the eco race, I think some features could be added to easier modes to simplify eco management. For example, in Very Easy, passive resource generation could be the case. There could be reminder-like visual cues for barracks such as: “produce soldiers.” These are just rough ideas, not actual suggestions. It also takes time for a new player to understand what they are supposed to do against the enemy’s CC and buildings. Some end up attacking it with 10–15 units, slowly die, while others (if they have discovered the capture mechanic) might try to capture it with too few troops. It seems like they could really benefit from some kind of guidance in this area. As I mentioned above and also visible in the replays, Very Hard needs improvement as well. For me, playing against Petra is almost a claustrophobic experience. It feels closed off and small scale, against a predictable opponent whose “soul” I can’t really feel. I don’t have this feeling in other single-player games I guess. A close example in terms of style would be "Praetorians". I’m not sure what the exact difference is, but I suspect the lack of an economy plays a major role. When there’s no economy, the game becomes much more strategic. For those unfamiliar: Praetorians is an RTS game without resources like wood or gold. Instead, it uses other mechanics, such as capturing villages that determine population limits and gaining experience points through combat, which unlock stronger units. The campaign experience on Very Hard was one of the best gaming experiences ever. The campaign itself was solid, personally, I find the game excellent. However it is probably weak in multiplayer. I’m not sure what to say about “AI cheating.” I guess at some point you have to do it. In Call of Duty, for example, enemy bullets become stronger and more accurate as difficulty increases. It’s worth examining what actually changes between difficulty levels in different games. Basically what I expect from Very Hard is improved tactical depth, better decision making, more varied options and stronger map analysis. - @Deicide4u If Petra only attacks me with cavalry, I will respond with a pikeman heavy army. Because I know Petra will always do that and that’s exactly the problem: predictability, robotic behavior, monotony. I have also won 2v1 VH matches without using slingers at all, as shown in the Macedonian examples of my replays above. You can do this with any civilization. I don’t want to fill here with replays anymore (I can share them if specifically requested). The main point is not why I win, but why the Very Hard loses so easily even in 2v1 or 3v1 scenarios. It’s about its tactical limitations, its predictability and its simplicity to defeat.

This is indeed a good question, and one I’m thoroughly unqualified to answer. I’d suspect Petra would be unable to deal with any of this and would need to also be modified, but this was just some brainstorming, @Asher is right on starting basic.

I’m not interested in discussing semantics. The point you’re making is clear: “many people might get a bad impression of the game,” and based on that premise, you’re defending your idea of recalibrating the difficulty levels. But the reality is that you have no actual evidence that this is a frustration point that is driving players away. To be clear: I don’t see a problem with recalibrating the AI. What I do see as a problem is making decisions based on personal opinions presented as if they were factual premises. Here’s another assumption without solid grounding: in your less than three months here, how many people from the community have you actually talked to in order to make that claim? How many members do you think the community has to assert that this is the “opinion of many”? And how many others don’t participate here and might hold a completely different view? The truth is, you don’t know. Yet you bring it up, assume it as a valid premise, and from there make proposals about how things "should be.” And how do you know that the majority of singleplayer players don’t enjoy the game at its current pacing? Do you have any statistics to support that? I’ve seen new players running the game at 1.25x speed, so does that mean the game is too slow? I understand that this may be your preference, and that others might agree with you. There’s nothing wrong with having a different opinion or proposing ideas, but it would be better not to defend them based on unproven assumptions.

Were these points addressed to AoE in particular or talking about the struggle for single player experience in general? I'm also a bit confused about what it means to have a multiplayer focused game? is that for the design of units, civs, and gameplay mechanics? or just that not enough effort goes into single player features? I would be one to argue that the competitive experience should always drive development of gameplay mechanics, and that this should not cause any detriment to SP or beginner MP players. Good gameplay features are ones that can be enjoyed by all levels but are difficult to master at the top level, and in order to get the skill depth it is important to consider how those features are used at the top level.

Whoa! Since when do we have in sunny Ithaca? Is it a new snow texture?

Decals mod for test, rome almost done. Starting with hellenic's civilization then persian's: decals.7z

There's already an issue for that: #7454 (Incorrect Unit Classifications for Idle Worker Hotkey).

How many observations? In earlier versions I knew when I could expect all enemy teams at my doorstep, but I feel that has changed and there's more variety of how it plays out.

Indeed! For DE, non-combat heroes are a thing. Each civ can have 4-5 heroes, so having 4 combat heroes or emperors, plus 1 non-combat or non-emperor/leader hero adds some nice variation and choice. It's good if not all heroes are "kings" or generals. Chanakya for the Mauryas is a great example.

Thank you. Putting this here for future reference: I think mimicking this aesthetic style would still be nice:

Hello, nice man. I like this mod. There is an issue in the 12.1 update, simulation\templates\template_player.xml or simulation/templates/template_player.xml is causing statistics not to show after match because FemaleCitizen was replaced with Civilian in 28.0 and some counter.js file got explosive. I just copied the xml from the mod, added Civilian to the UnitClasses tag and it seems to show the stats just fine now. Hope that helps Take cool

Hittite unities and structures, opinions, things to change in their architecture, accepted ideas.https://github.com/0ADMods/aristeia/tree/mycenae_and_minoan

I like the idea of Mayan glyph being used as icons; many of them are old enough to span the entire period: Ajaw: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajaw Balam (Jaguar) Kaan (Snake).

This didn't look right to me, so I checked: that's not a real Maya symbol, but a Mayanism one (New Age stuff), funnily enough based on an Aztec symbol. You can see the original Aztec one on page 13 of this scan of the Codex Magliabechiano: https://digicoll.lib.berkeley.edu/record/289019?v=pdf

Do you still need answers? Has there been a discussion about preferred units somewhere? Just a few things in the meantime. Regarding the great Gupta emperors, all were warriors and patrons of learning, giving them auras with combat and maybe tech speed bonuses. For their differences: -Chandra-gupta I: founder of the empire, unified territory through marriage, followed by conquest. Maybe capture bonus (since diplomacy mechanics are not that complex). -Samudra-gupta: the conqueror, put in place a great army, which probably included a navy. More combat, and military production speed bonuses. -Chandra-gupta II: patron of learning, similar to the previous one, but maybe the greatest. Brought to maturity the empire. Production or more tech speed bonuses. -Skanda-gupta: protector of the empire, successful against invasions, considered the last of the greats. Maybe structure's arrow count bonus. As an alternative, Aryabhata I: famous thinker (math, astronomy, physics), if having these non-combat heroes is a thing. Could greatly accelerate tech research speed when garrisoning a building. It’s hard for me not to give importance to the learning advances in this period, which I can only translate to tech research speed in the game (maybe could be balanced by having lots of techs to research). The Nalanda mahavihara could be a related unique structure, possibly a Wonder. Another unique structure could be the Delhi Iron Pillar, and the Aśvamedha ritual a unique tech (both could increase Hero/emperor’s stats).

Well, since there's Han and Mauryans and not just Chinese and Indians, it seems to me this has been the path the game has been taking for a while, whenever possible (for Britons, Germans and Iberians is a bit more complicated but maybe at some point enough information will be gathered to instead have at least a couple of representative tribes from each). Sasanians and Parthians, also Persian empires, for sure will make an appearance at some point in the base game, so a change from Persians to Achaemenids seems a necessity.

@Genava55 the point obviously is, as noted before, how something looks when it's freshly built. I mentioned the Colossus because it's a Wonder that came to mind that changed quite fast, thus the distinction between earthquakes and grass is quite irrelevant considering what the actual point is. And no, it was not "completely destroyed", it remained in the ground for centuries, still in its way a wonder, in words of Pliny the Elder: "even as it lies, it excites our wonder and admiration". But if earthquakes distract you so much, then another example more aligned to the grass issue: should the Statue of Liberty (assuming a game reaching the modern age) be built with the green patina already on it? Might look familiar, but it's inaccurate, which has been the point all along. Now, another issue is, is the Wonder some generic kurgan? Because yes, some had pebbles, others not, so maybe it should be decided first which kurgan in particular should be represented (the largest?), and if it never had pebbles to begin with then there's not much discussion to be had, I think. Personally I might have gone for the mausoleum of Skilurus (which seems more unique).

Hittite Lybris shield