Boudica

How about me? Do I "add arrows"?

Hi there, I assume that the problem could also lie in the diplomacy settings (i.e. "Are they really an enemy?"). When setting up the match, make sure that their team number is different from yours (or there can be no team number assigned to both players). If the diplomacy mode is enabled (meaning if it's allowed to change your teams during the game), you can try opening the diplomacy setting (icon somewhere in the top right corner) and check if the AI is set to Enemy and not Neutral.

Interestingly, there is a difference between HP and armor bonus when it comes to healing: the armor doesn't reduce healing as it does taking damage. That would make an armor bonus stronger than a HP one. When Ptolemies had this cavalry hero that gave extra 40% HP to pikemen in his aura, you could heal the pikemen faster by moving them out of the aura. I remember playing some games from the times before the exponential armor system, and there seemed to be a problem where if a unit or building had more armor points than you had damage points, you wouldn't be able to cause damage to it anymore. And so there was a hard-coded minimum of 1 HP damage (one other detail is that nowadays the HP uses the fractional part, even if it's not shown). That could mean that you were better off using a greater number of very weak units (like archers) because you had the the guarantee of at least 1 HP per arrow shot.

Maybe the game should ask about your dietary preference at the start. If you are a meat eater, a piece of meat will be used for the icon. If you are vegetarian, it will show an omelette as the icon and hunting will be disabled for you. If you are vegan, it will broadcast a message telling everyone about that for your convenience.

A fun thread bump. It's been almost six years, and the people having this discussion back then are now mostly gone. It seems that 0 A.D. could survive without a new fundraising. Would extra funds help? Perhaps. But I see how it might be hard to put a price on different kind of contributions and come to an agreement with the whole team. Maybe it would be easier to directly donate to individuals who have been working on the game. No contracts or obligations, no disputes. That could work. Just make an overview for individual volunteers with summaries of tickets resolved, commits pushed, etc., and their plans for future works. And then let a contributor selects who he's gonna pay and how much. Like when you order from Humble Bundle (I haven't for a few years, so not sure if it still works the same).

So it's like the updated version of the Mauryan ram Easter egg.

ChatGPT prompt: You are team Cheaters. Make a lengthy opinionated article using what has been said in the old thread. Sorry for not being too nice, but you must see that opening a new thread by stating that people missed the point can come across as insulting. From the part I read, it would seem you could also be OK with people driving a marathon by car, etc. I don't think there is value in repeating old points in many words. It's as if you preferred the strawman argument, rather than adding to what has already been said. There wasn't a need to explain that "Directly tampering with the simulation in multiplayer is already impossible" because that's not even what the quote says. "Modifying the world in ways they shouldn't be able to" (what the quote says) really is possible to do. So now what? Who is missing the point? I gotta go now, I unfortunately don't have that much time for these discussions anymore.

Typing banani should ban nani.

Great tip! I was just thinking why just play 0 A.D. when I can install one more package manager onto my system. Trust us, it's very safe. All you need to do is feed this freshly downloaded script directly to a root shell. They sell you this illusion of consistently packaged, bleeding edge software, but then you end up using Snap, Flatpak, Wine, AUR, Nix. And in the end, you'll have to go build it yourself if you don't want to wait a week for someone to re-package it for your system of choice. Rants aside, it did build after adding a few flags to the command, but I couldn't get it to run: ERROR: SetVideoMode failed in SDL_CreateWindow: 1024x768:24 0 ("No GL driver has been loaded") In the time needed to resolve all these issues, I could just go reinstall Windows and make a few tweaks to make them less annoying. I'll just install what I want and it will even run faster.

Incredible!

I honestly thought this was just bots talking because the community is never this nice. Then I realized this thread is over 20 years old, and kitegirl's son is already an adult. I stumbled across it by clicking on what a random Guest User was viewing, so I didn’t expect it to be a wormhole into the past, back when I barely even had a computer. I hope some of you are still around and doing fine.

I didn't have much time for a proper response, so I fed my quick thoughts into ChatGPT and ask it to make that into a full answer. You might need to clarify whether you're asking about general player preferences in RTS games or specifically about their behavior in the current alpha of 0 A.D. If it's the latter, I have some insights: APM and Gameplay Style: Fast economic growth (booming) requires high APM (actions per minute). Many players, especially those who aren't pros, find it easier to focus on either growing their economy or fighting, but not both simultaneously. As a result, they often switch from economic growth to combat at a certain point. Engaging all units in battle means there's less economic management needed. Full Population Strategy: Reaching full population with all upgrades provides players with confidence. They know their opponent won't have more units or better technology if they themselves have maxed out their capabilities. Early Attacks: If an opponent attacks early, they spend significant time moving their units across the map, which can be inefficient. Subsequent reinforcements also take longer to arrive, potentially weakening the attack. The question might not be about wanting smaller fights. Instead, your concerns could be addressed by improving the UI to make unit management easier.

I honestly think that the 0 A.D. community could use less guessing of who is who and more banning of all these narcissistic smurfs. There is now a player who has been convicted of spreading lies and degrading the community. Letting him contribute in this way sends a message that this is tolerable. I understand that there is this concern that it might not be fair to ban one player and keep another (for now), but this fear will IMHO do more damage. It feels like trying to be nice to someone who is robbing you. I'd even recommend only talking to smurfs with a dose of contempt like I do. I consider remembering your password to be a sign of respect for the community. And not-remembering is almost always an excuse anyway because otherwise they'd pick a name similar to the one they're know by. Let's not tolerate the intolerant. P.S.: Posting publicly the whole contents of the chat including allied and direct messages is inappropriate.

So we doing the armchair generals in a nomad game, and I made this comment that one player will probably form a sandwich, but it wasn't clear whether he'd be the meat or the bun. And that one player ended up becoming the bun. Which means they ended up beating the meat with the other bun. Extra credits: aow for beating the meat, Peter_Nubia for a word slip (be/beat), @BreakfastBurrito_007 for pointing out the word slip

Perhaps Greek isn't all Greek to me.