iNcog

wait so chariots would become melee units?

I'm all for making maps more interesting, I suppose. I've actually suggested a few ideas similar to your own in the past. So.. hmm, we as long as we agree that maps aren't 100% stale right now, then it's fine I guess. carry on my gracious fellow. something worth noting is that anyone can make their own maps though. so maybe have a stab at the atlas editor. it's not too hard actually, that tool is quite powerful.

Maps always kind of matter. Playing on the savanna map with the spread out trees and elephants everywhere isn't quite the same as playing on the jungle map with tigers and stuff.

Valar is among the better players I play against, you can see that his opening is probably better than mine. Mistakes happen from both players all the time. I wouldn't say that I'm better than any other player out there, nor would I say that other people are better than me. Rather, we play games and things happen in game. I'm more interested in finding the tipping point during the game and I believe that you're indeed right, the tipping point in this game was the fight I took after going back to my base for reinforcements. When did I get the advantage and how did I get it? Is there a way for my opponent to take it back? Are there any actions I did which would weaken my position? These are the kinds of questions that I like to ask. Without a replay system, the only means we have of recording games is the usage of video recording programs. In this way, everyone can study games and analyze them and we can come to agreement as to what is good and what isn't. If anyone watched my VOD and told me "you did this wrong" or you "that was a good idea", we could discuss that issue and test out these theories in game. This allows us to further our knowledge of 0 AD and how it works. That would be quite interesting imo, it's less about winning or losing than it is understanding what happened during the game. Though, indeed, everyone likes winning. I would really encourage everyone to try to record and post their games as well because I'm really interested in seeing how others play the game. I have my style but I'm not sure that it's the right one. A17 is definitely an improvement of the game compared to A16 though.

What unit is supposed to counter chariots anyway? Are melee cavalry supposed to do that or skirmishers? A lot could be solved by simply playing on the pierce armor that chariots have. Reduce that and Skirmishers will probably become a cost-effective solution against chariots. Of course, it depends on what role you want Chariots to have in the game. Are they a mobile glass cannon or something? I've been playing 0 AD recently but no one has made chariots against me yet.

My point was that massing just a single unit is unrealistic. I mass only Chariots, that gets beat by melee cav. I mass only melee cav, that gets beat by spear infantry. I mass only spear infantry, that gets beat by ranged units. I mass only ranged units, that gets beat by Chariots or by melee cav. What you should really be doing is mixing up the different types of units at your disposal. You should also be able to judge whether or not you can fight in a given scenario. If you can't, pull back, regroup to your reinforcements. Make sure that your units are well positioned when they fight as well, and so on. I don't know much about chariots so I'm not going to talk about them; I just hope they aren't skirm cav Mk II. If the only possibility of beating Chariots is using melee cav and everything else loses, that might actually be a problem since a good player will be able to simply protect the flanks of his chariots. It might also not be a problem at all, I don't know enough to say anything.

sometimes clicks don't register though i sometimes have to click a few times to select a unit and even buildings.

So what happens when you mix chariots and protect them with spear infantry?

<3 the people working on path finding i really can't wait to see the fruits of their work now, what i find more shocking is that you would actually play a game on acropolis i jest I don't actually mind the lack of formations, I find that cavalry units in particular have very nice movement now.

When I want a group of units to attack, I select them and hit "h" for halt. They'll then attack the closest enemy units I believe. Buildings come after there are no units, from my experience playing the game (I THINK).

I've played a few games recently and out of those that I recorded, this is the best one: You're best watching this one on Google Chrome since that's where you can see the extra FPS. Otherwise, not a lot to say. In this game the idea was really to try to get the smoothest possible build and macro. I'm still unsure of what the best strategies / builds should be though.

I think all units need to be looked at to be perfectly frank. fights are mostly won by who has the most stuff, not who has the right unit composition or micro. Or who has the most buildings.

The only thing I said was that a single corral, with constant sheep production and absolutely 0 queue time will produce ~ 3 food / s. That's literally the only piece of content in that post. I never said that Corrals are good to use, nor did I say they were bad. I didn't have an opinion on the topic so I simply stated a simple fact. Why are you putting words in my mouth? Pardon the expression, but are you an idiot?

With constant sheep production, a single corral produces ~ 3 food / second.

Any building that shoots is a problem imo. Their damage output is too high compared to how hard it is to take the down. A defensive style based around buildings and ranged units is too cost-efficient, imo. Like, if the player has ranged units defending the building that location is impossible to take. unless you have literally 3 times the amount of units that he has, which is unrealistic

On buildings: - They are too easy to kill when they're being built, especially to ranged units. - They are still waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too strong against units when they're up. Mother mercy it's not even funny how strong buildings are. Units are irrelevant in the game until buildings are nerfed.

It's like you didn't read my post at all.

Why change berries though? Aren't they fine as they are right now? For farms, well I still don't understand the use of adding a rotation mechanic. All it actually does is require a player to execute more actions to get the most out of his farms. I don't particularly mind mechanical tasks but if you're going to have them, shouldn't they add to the game? The way you're describing this feature is that it seems that you need to actively micro-manage your villagers to get the most income out of your farms. That doesn't add anything it just makes things harder for no reason. You might as well remove rally points as well while you're at it, since it does the exact same thing: if you want to get the most out of your units you'll have to micro-manage them. I would have thought that properly managing dropsite placement, citizen-soldier income and villager allocation was already interesting enough in terms of economic management. Not to mention we have things like Caravans to generate resources as well. I can understand the desire to make farming more interesting in the game but I don't think that making them harder to manage mechanically speaking is the right way to do it. I think upgrading farms is a better way of doing it; imagine for example training an ox in the corral. If you task the ox to a farm, that farm has increased production. This is a simple example but one that I think is more interesting than simply moving villagers around, since it's more about investing resources to make a certain building perform better. You could maybe even train oxen to be tasked to storehouses. A oxen tasked to a storehouse becomes a mobile dropsite, for example it could carry 500 resources on its back and bring it back to the storehouse so that villagers can concentrate on gathering resources instead of moving them around or something. For you it becomes interesting to make sure that every farm and storehouse has its ox to work with, for the enemy it becomes a juicy raiding target. Idk, I just came up with this idea on the spot, but it's the kind of thing that would add more to the game than making things hard would be.

If the farms are automatically re-sown when they're depleted and it's done so for free, then why implement this feature at all? Besides giving coders even more work, that is. It doesn't add any necessary actions for players, since everything is done for free and automatically. The only difference is that instead of putting 5 villagers on a farm, I'll put 4. This changes nothing? I don't care about berries though since berries are an early game resource, they don't have upgrades for them in the mid to late game and they get in the way of buildings. Nietkb's idea of having farms needing to cost wood to generate back to full food is an interesting one, though the amount of interest it actually adds to the game is minimal in my opinion. A player like me will probably simply pay the wood each time a farm gets depleted every time. This adds a mechanical task, yes, but it doesn't add that much to the game itself, in my opinion. I personally think farms are fine, perhaps they need to have their numbers tweaked. If you want to make them more interesting, why not give them some interesting upgrades? Decrease their build time, allow more villagers to work on a single farm, increase their output, and so on? Give players stepping stones to set up a stronger economy. If you want to make other food sources viable, why not change the way Corrals work? Why not give villagers the ability to plant apple trees or olive trees? Either way, each and every proposition made in this thread is hours of work for the coders. So while it's fun to discuss things you always have to keep the coders in mind. Your changes are nonsensical in that they add a big workload for coders without actually adding much to the game. You'll notice I took the time to directly discuss your proposed changes before turning to you. Your subsequent posts in this thread are even more condescending than your original post in the thread I notice. "i was intentionally rude", "good answers", "zzzippy is childish", "no fun with less skilled people", "people won't listen to my ideas because they come from me". You're still a rude person and your ideas aren't really all that great. "i have mastered A17 in a week" is a joke, if you even knew how RTS games work at all, you'll realize how vertically stupid that comment was. There is no mastering an RTS, period. The meta-game in any RTS is constantly, constantly evolving. Go beat the likes of borg, wesono and tau every game and then come back and tell us how you've mastered the game. Until then, keep that ridiculously arrogant attitude of yours to yourself.

This is somewhat interesting. If I may, I have been toying around with the idea of doing a total and completely new unit set for a bit now, mostly for playing around with different types of counter systems. I decided not to do it since it would be a lot of work and I don't feel like bringing to the table a completely new unit set while Scythe and his testers are actively working on something else. My own unit set would be made from scratch though and made in a way so that units are designed to have a fill a role rather than being just numbers; I understand this was alpha123's original idea. I played around a bit in the map editor while doing this and the results I obtained were interesting to say the least, I had fun with the units I created by modifying their stats. The idea was to eliminate counters almost completely: only the bonus that spear infantry have against cavalry would remain (for realism AND because cavalry play a different fundamental role in my new unit set). A simple example, archers vs skirmishers: Don't you criticize Age of Empires 3. </3 !!! it's an excellent game in so many ways

I kind of agree with Auron's sentiment. I only skimmed this thread, mind you, however there are few things that slightly annoy me. First off, if you're going to criticize the game, which is a totally legitimate thing to do in my opinion, then be courteous about it. Everyone who comes into 0 AD definitely comes with their ideas and past experiences. You can indeed contribute your thoughts, ideas and past experiences to discuss certain aspects of the game. However that does not mean that you are right (or wrong) and that the game should be developed how you say it should be. You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to join the forums and (somewhat aggressively) criticize the way things are done. Pathing and coding is being continuously worked on by marvelous people who spend their free time and utilize their skills to help the game. It's unreal that anyone would work on something so hard for free during their free time; this is why you must worship them and not criticize their work, which isn't finished anyway. Similarly, the game design is being worked on. Anyone is free to come and contribute their ideas on how things you should be. The right attitude is to come in and discuss things rationally, using things like in game experience and past RTS experiences to back up your claims. The wrong attitude is to join the forums and tell people that what they're doing is wrong. It's somewhat insulting to those who have been working on this game. This may seem a little rich coming from me since I have been very vocal about a lot of things concerning 0 AD in the past (counter system, tech pairing, what have you) however I've always attempted refrain from forcing my own ideas too much (i back up what i say with lots of arguing). It's also very difficult for a single person to design the game from ground up. That post at the top of the thread was a just bit condescending. I understand some of the issues that that person is bringing up but he's not being very polite about it, so to speak.

isn't that because of the "run" speed that units have?

i tried making a custom map for 0 AD SVN, yet that corrupted things somehow for every 0 AD install on my PC. so i uninstalled everything, deleted everything, yet everything remains corrupted.

I just checked, the virtualstore folder you mentioned is empty.

I corrupted my 0 AD install somehow and reinstalling doesn't help. http://i.imgur.com/3wKPwFv.png I'm guessing I have some files of 0 AD left somewhere on my computer that's causing this. I have deleted the following and I still get issues: C:\Users\4670\Documents\My Games\0ad C:\Users\4670\AppData\Local\0ad C:\Program Files (x86)\0 A.D. alpha So I'm not sure what to do anymore. I have also un-installed the SVN version