iNcog

Ok, thanks. That makes more sense too, since I was wondering why pathfinding would be in map directory. To be fair, the pathfinder seems to be working nicely in the current SVN build.

I take it "pathplacer.js" is the file which takes care of pathfinding? D:\0_AD_SVN\data\mods\public\maps\random\rmgen Some of the math in that file looks like geometry

The rise of the east mod looks very nice. o_o

you trickster, you

now wait a second did i really create a new thread for this?

when you differentiate units produced by time, you come to realize that the more barracks, the better

i wouldn't mind economic upgrades not boosting gather rates on citizen soldiers

sup have a couple of noob questions what language are you guys currently writing in? c++ ? what do you use to edit the code? visual basic studio? how exactly does one find the code to work on it? i mean literally have the code (for pathfinding for example) on my screen, for me to mess around (or at least read) ? e: it's all explained here: http://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/BuildInstructions

it comes from any economy based rts i like starcraft because it's a pretty good rts but in reality i've played a lot more aoe3 it's just common sense. the more you queue, the more the resources you've gathered are sitting idle doing nothing. it slows down your economic or military expansion, which in turns leaves you behind

It wasn't that fine, in my opinion the unit set back then didn't make a lot of sense. Honestly all players did back then was just spam a single unit type and a-move with that. Unit interaction was a bit stale. I didn't really see how unit interaction back then was a brilliant design. It was so incredibly counter-intuitive that literally the only counter I remember is Cavalry skirmishers were supposed to be countered by Spear Infantry and Elephants. That made little to no sense and I don't think that a lot of the other counters did either. Changing the unit set so as to get rid of multipliers is something that's been in the works for a while, I asked about it maybe a year ago. It's not something without reason either. Units are being given actual roles now and the changes that Sycthe is making make sense to me.

go play league of legends or smt m8

Well let's be fair, the counter scheme was kind of weird. This simplifies things greatly, it's kind of like a fresh start. Whether or not it's bad, I don't know. I personally didn't like the old ways of doing things and I'm liking the general direction that sycthe is taking. I mean, if you could give me reasons why the last unit set made sense, I might be more able to agree with you. ;p

I think that if people want to have a constructive discussion about these things, we must first define the roles of each and every unit. As in, what role do we want the units to have. Are melee infantry units supposed to backbone of an army, with ranged units getting a support role? Or do we want the ranged units to be the backbone? Similarly, Cavalry units should act as mobile shock troops, however are they supposed to be too expensive to be used as units by themselves? Playing on unit cost is something which can be done as well to balance out units, it's important to remember that. I wouldn't mind going back to units which only cost two resources, by the way. (edit, why are foot companions so slow in the current build? )

How exactly is their damage bursty? There isn't a charge mechanism quite installed yet, is there?

Not much as I haven't played the game enough recently. In my musings I'd imagined the spear cavalry to be a cheaper, lighter and faster version of swords cavalry. The spear as a weapon seems to excel in taking out fragile targets (ranged infantry or harvesters). Scythe should have his word to say ^^

you're doing a lot of research o_o, very nice

You have to play on the attributes given to units if you take away the multipliers they have. You could have a hard counter system like it was done in Aoe3; that would get you very fun unit interaction and micro. In fact when I first got into 0 A.D. about a year ago, I was for the use of a very hard counter system. My arguments were very similar to the one you just gave. However that direction isn't the one taken by the 0 AD project, the way I understand things. I'll come back to unit stats as a way to differentiate units. We can look over a basic example. Let's imagine that we have an archer unit which costs 100 resources. It does 10 damage every shot and it fires once a second (10 dps). It has 100 hp. Now let's take a swordsmen unit. This unit also costs 100 resources, it does 10 damage every second (10 dps). Let's give the swordsmen 200 hp. Which unit is better? The archers with their range or the swordsmen with their health? The answer isn't clear cut, really. If you engage 20 swordsmen vs 20 archers, the swordsmen should win easily. If you have the archers hit and run consistently, the archers might win, however it will take time. Time is a resource in an rts game. You also can't use hit and run when you're defending a position (civic center, resources or map control). Arguably, even if you give the archers more dps than the swordsmen (13-15), the swordsmen would still win a straight up fight due to their HP. This is without multipliers. The strength of the archer resides not in the fact that it is a cost-efficient unit, but it resides in the range it has. If we look at things more broadly, we realize that it's possible to play on the strengths that units have to balance them out. Ranged units can be given range, dps and poor HP. Melee units can be given dps and strong HP. Ranged units caught in a melee fight will lose straight up. Ranged units which act as support for friendly melee units can help turn the tide of the fight. Basically, by playing on the different attributes which units are given, you can give them a certain niche role. A unit which is correctly used in that role will do well, a unit which is mis-used will quickly die. It's kind of like the Mutalisk in starcraft. In Zerg vs Terran, using your mutalisks to fight in a straight up fight is generally suicide. Yet you won't hear a single Terran player who says that mutalisks are a bad unit. Mutalisks were given mobility and damage output. The role they then serve is that of picking off high value targets, workers, cutting off reinforcements and obtaining map control. Mutalisks have no multipliers to help them do extra damage to certain units, yet they still serve a niche role and they're very fun units for that purpose. The same can be said for the Marine. You can easily replicate this in 0 A.D, I modded the game a bit on my own to give units certain attributes like the ones I described, the results were quite interesting. For example, you could give skirmishers high attack, but low attack frequency. The overall dps that skirmishers have make them bad in straight up fights. However, they could hit and run units quite well due to their high attack. This made skirmishers soft-counter melee infantry units. However making an army with only skirmishers would inevitably lead to defeat. All of this can be done without the use of multipliers and I think that this is what scythe is slowly but surely working towards. It's for the purpose of micro that I would like ranged units to always hit their targets. As I've said before, this may be a game where the time setting is set in the Antiquity, but it remains a game. In an RTS, you want your units to be reliable. I don't personally believe that ranged units missing their targets adds anything to 0 AD as a game. I see 0 A.D. as an RTS with huge potential which is in development. I don't quite see 0 AD as a historical simulation. Of course, nothing is wrong with having different views and I respectfully acknowledge your point.

I loaded up the most recent version of 0 A.D. and played 5 minutes. I really like the fact that multipliers are gone and simplified. I do however feel that ranged units should not "miss". I don't like the concept, I can understand where it comes from but I just don't feel the concept. In an RTS, you have to trust your units to do exactly what you need them to. Whether or not ranged units have too much range or too much dps is something I can't comment on at the moment, I haven't played the game enough to have a valid opinion. I will just say that (for A19, if anything) in my mind, the best working solution for 0 A.D. is giving ranged units a support role. they're good for scouting, they're good for harass, they're cheap, extra dps in a fight. However massing only ranged units will give you an army which is too fragile, which loses. This is the ideal role for ranged units, I feel. Likewise, melee units should be tougher units than ranged. Melee cavalry should be tough and fast, but they should also be more expensive to balance things out. This comes down to numbers and design, however getting rid of most multipliers (except for spear infantry against Cavalry) is, imo, a step in the right direction.

I actually really love this change.

10 ms? http://i.imgur.com/wgM0DEk.png which indeed isn't a lot

I've been wondering, isn't a calcuation like 0.9^armorvalue a bit too demanding? if you reduced it to a simpler calculation, wouldn't that net performance boost? or is that stuff peanuts compared to path-finding?

See, this is kind of why I jumped the gun. It's the insinuation that most people apparently believe that Africans are a primitive sub-species. Bringing social/racial/historical issues into something which is supposed to revolve around developing a game kind of gets my goat. We're really all here to have fun discussing the game 0 AD. The game's design, its historical aspect, the coding in the game, all that fun stuff. Whereas I don't necessarily disagree with the notion that it would be interesting to see under-represented civilizations included in the game, I do disagree the angle from which you're approaching the problem. You come with the idea that Europeans are evil because they disregard African history and because they had slaves hundreds of years ago. That is why I felt like reminding you that Africans themselves participated in the triangular commerce. Slavery itself is a terrible, terrible thing. NO ONE is questioning that. NO ONE here is pro-slavery (even though it still exists today, mind you). Historically speaking, no country or culture is really innocent of slavery, it's important to remember that. History is history, it should not be forgotten and it should be respected. However the actions we take today shouldn't reflect what happened in history. "He hit me, so I hit back". That sort of thing is silly. I'm French yet I have very good relations with German people. Yet France and Germany have historically been at each other's throats for centuries. Hence my reaction; it might seem distasteful to you or others, but I don't believe I'm completely in the wrong. Nor am I trolling, I am serious when I post my views. This post turned out longer than I had originally anticipated, sorry about that. tl;dr a new civ might be nice and all but I think the civs we already have need some working on either way.

This should definitely get to steam quickly however before that, performance issues need to be fixed or at least greatly stemmed.

Idle resources. Essentially in an Rts you want to spend resources as fast as possible into something useful. So by queuing units, some of those resources aren't being used and are just sitting there doing nothing for the time it takes for the first batch to finish. It's inefficient.

Queuing more than two batches in a go is a mistake either way.