Nobbi

For linux players who are lost how to get the a27 of 0AD. Here a way how to build the game: Download the build and data file for linux in the formate you can unzip from: https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/releases Unzip the data into the same folder. After that follow the instruction from Atrik, but ignore the old download of the release candidates (rc): instead of pyrogenesis in some cases its better to type "./pyrogenesis"!

No, I wasnt. :/ Even when in the right folder of the released version puting pyrogenesis in shell started global 0ad which is probably is the old svn download. Using ./pyrogenesis started the right version. So, now it works!

Great work! I got the game data for linux from https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/releases and build the game from it. Game also works. But somehow I still just see the old lobby when going online. Any idea why?

I still didn't see people using them. So I don't know how relevant this unit/diversification really is. Maybe people didn't realize they can make them in barracks. :/ But I really like the idea of this small differences, like the Iberian fire CAV. We should make champions available as soon as one enters P3. There should be no extra tech for it. Also there should be a balance for CIVs, which need extra buildings for champs. Some of that buildings have high costs or bad unit stats (the Athenian gymnasium still doesn't extend the area of a player). My experience with champ build time in team games is not that bad, when I start fighting there wouldn't be enough resources to make constant champions with reduced building time. So I don't consider it one of the biggest issues in 0AD. Rebalancing archers would be more relevant, people again complain about getting archers CIVs, when games are with random CIVs!

Hi, that is a nice thing to see the changes. I still don't find when the archer firing rate got decreased to 1.25 (from 1) and I also missed the discussion about it here in chat. I think. Where did it come from? Besides that the change log has some mistake in it. Like Hans don't have elephants so it doesn't matter for them if splash damage was introduced or for pike there is written twice the Hack damage is decrease but I think one of it is armour.

A starting point could be undo the changes to Persian immortals. I never saw anyone playing them any more after they had the chance to switch between spear and bow. Please make them spear only champs with high HP as for any other CIV with spear INF champ. And also add an upgrade for barracks to make them there, because of the palace build limit. This would add a nice non CAV strat to Persians.

No, I am not saying they are too strong now. I am saying, when you lower range of towers or other buildings below 60 range, CAV archers might become OP.

Please, don't change the range of towers or CCs or u mess up the balance with CAV archers/camels again. Another idea is to make pierce damage of CCs or towers dependent from the phase. So they will not be too strong in P1 but also not too weak in P3.

Hey, I also have the Problem that the game does not work anymore. I changed my processor with integrated graphic card and now 0AD does not start anymore. Ryzen 3400G -> 5700G I am using snap version of a26. I tryed to delete the config file but it didn't work. Find the crash log below. I guess there is some configurations which just need to be deleted or reset and it will work. I am glad for any help. @vladislavbelov Assertion failed: "!m_Worker" Location: UserReport.cpp:516 (~CUserReporter) Call stack: (0x55bef0fed10e) /snap/0ad/592/binaries/system/pyrogenesis(+0x5ed10e) [0x55bef0fed10e] (0x55bef0fa18a1) /snap/0ad/592/binaries/system/pyrogenesis(+0x5a18a1) [0x55bef0fa18a1] (0x55bef0fa35f3) /snap/0ad/592/binaries/system/pyrogenesis(+0x5a35f3) [0x55bef0fa35f3] (0x55bef0cd92e3) /snap/0ad/592/binaries/system/pyrogenesis(+0x2d92e3) [0x55bef0cd92e3] (0x7f4e99f15031) /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6(+0x43031) [0x7f4e99f15031] (0x7f4e99f1512a) /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6(+0x4312a) [0x7f4e99f1512a] (0x7f4e9c0b7888) /snap/0ad/592/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libX11.so.6(+0x40888) [0x7f4e9c0b7888] (0x7f4e9c0b79ba) /snap/0ad/592/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libX11.so.6(_XError+0x11a) [0x7f4e9c0b79ba] (0x7f4e9c0b48eb) /snap/0ad/592/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libX11.so.6(+0x3d8eb) [0x7f4e9c0b48eb] (0x7f4e9c0b4995) /snap/0ad/592/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libX11.so.6(+0x3d995) [0x7f4e9c0b4995] (0x7f4e9c0b52c5) /snap/0ad/592/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libX11.so.6(_XEventsQueued+0x55) [0x7f4e9c0b52c5] (0x7f4e9c0b8085) /snap/0ad/592/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libX11.so.6(_XGetRequest+0x55) [0x7f4e9c0b8085] (0x7f4e24078bb2) /snap/0ad/592/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libGLX_mesa.so.0(+0x34bb2) [0x7f4e24078bb2] (0x7f4e9ee1f7b3) /snap/0ad/592/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libSDL2-2.0.so.0(+0xcb7b3) [0x7f4e9ee1f7b3] (0x7f4e9edf2746) /snap/0ad/592/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libSDL2-2.0.so.0(+0x9e746) [0x7f4e9edf2746] (0x7f4e9edf48e4) /snap/0ad/592/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libSDL2-2.0.so.0(+0xa08e4) [0x7f4e9edf48e4] errno = 9 (?) OS error = ?

True, but still people can't see the stats of centurions in this way. Could be shown in structure tree as isolated unit at P3 also saying upgrade from rank 3 melee units. Hm, for my understanding of the game fights of ELEs vs CAV was not a common situation and CAV is much faster so bonus of 1.5 vs CAV is good but not so relevant. For balancing and realism I would wish for a more directional splash damage of the ELEs. They can't do damage front and back of them at the same time. I would suggest maximum 1/3 of a circle in front of them. Sorry, it is not fine. Capturing enemy buildings with production capabilities is inconsistent and should be fixed! Right now for most CIVs for captured barracks, stables and arsenals one has the same options as for your native buildings. Exception is HAN CIV here you can not make crossbowman or catapults, but u can research the upgrade for ranged archers in stable. While the latter is not a big issue the lack of crossbowman and catapults in captured buildings is a disadvantage compared to other CIVs. This should be fixed in a27. For CCs I wish for the same. A captured CC should have the same production capabilities as the a native CC. For some CIV combinations one can just make women from a captured CC. It would also be nice to make KUSH and CARTH making CHAMPs from any captured temple not just from the native one. Capturing CART embassies and KUSH mercenary buildings gives you the option to produce the full range of mercenaries the native CIV can. However, in captured colonies most CIVs can just make women. When capturing most special buildings in most cases one cannot produce anything. This needs discussion. I think when a CIV can make Heroes from a fort, it should also be possible to make heroes in any captured fort. When one captures any special building where your enemy can make heroes or champs why shouldn't it possible to make own heroes or champs from that building (For CHAMPs its already possible for some CIVs anyway). In captured roman army camps it is possible for pike CIVs to make rank 2 pikeman. KUSH actually can produce more units in the camp than the native CIV. So, right now its very diverse. Other small thing I found: - In the description of CARTH team bonus still saying -50 % production speed of mercenaries, but it is still just valid for infantry. - For MAUR Ashoka hero is not that useful anymore, first CIV bonus is the same as the hero bonus. When still choosing him as hero the tech bonus is not given twice while the temple has 1/4 of the native temple cost.

@BreakfastBurrito_007 Is there a thread about this discussion?

Thank you for all your effort. The changes to armies were melee units are the core troops will be more historical than it is right now. However, in my opinion this change will not bring more strategical deep into the game. At least I cannot see that right now. Players will adept to the changes and will make different army compositions. Still the faster boomer and earlier attacker has the highest chance to win the game. Did raiding with JAV CAV still work in your tests? It would be bad if not, than we would go back to a game were all players just boom. To make the game strategical more interesting we could work on bonuses for formations/better working formations, no ranged attack for range units in close combat (e.g. adding a weak melee attack to ranged units), melee units charging for enemy ranged units when no enemy melee unit is around, less armour when units get attacked from behind and so on ...

Unfortunately some parts are outdated and not valid for a26 anymore. I tried following the tutorial to make an own unit. But I think some data are in different folders or are not available anymore. But on the other hand it still explains a lot of the general structure and one can start exploring to mod the game.

I really like that players have more control over balancing now, but right now I worry about the pace of the changes. If change gets too fast, players will not be able to adapt to the new "rules" of the game and can't say if a previous change was good or bad. Is there any rule how much time we give to the players to see if the last changes can be kept or need to be refused?

Please don't remove the 3rd option. I would even say add more options! Yes and no is pretty obvious but you can't know what the 3rd option means. People might choose the 3rd option for different reasons. For example the change might not effect their playing style, they might not understand what the change is about, or they think its the right direction, but to strong or to weak, they want the change in a different way or as mentioned above, there is too many changes in one questions, which might be oppositional and therefore people can't give a clear answer. I know this makes the poll a bit more complicated, but in this community driven process communication is the most important thing, and that is why it is very important to know why people make certain choices.