LetswaveaBook

I don't know if I found the correct crash files. To clean my logs, I renamed the directory /home/stefan/.var/app/com.play0ad.zeroad/config/0ad/logs I ran 0ad in the teminal with the command /usr/bin/flatpak run --branch=stable --arch=x86_64 --command=0ad com.play0ad.zeroad Then 0ad started and I clicked on single player and on matches. There I selected "random" as the map type and clicked on "browse maps". I scrolled around for a little while and then the game seemed to close. After that I terminated the proces with ctrl+C. The music kept playing for a minute. The result in the terminal is: TIMER| InitVfs: 1.90684 ms Writing the mainlog at /home/stefan/.var/app/com.play0ad.zeroad/config/0ad/logs/mainlog.html TIMER| CONFIG_Init: 3.27961 ms Sound: AlcInit success, using OpenAL Soft TIMER| shutdown ConfigDB: 0.847 us TIMER| resource modules: 5.88766 ms TIMER TOTALS (9 clients) ----------------------------------------------------- tc_pool_alloc: 0 c (0x) tc_png_decode: 0 c (0x) tc_dds_transform: 0 c (0x) tc_transform: 0 c (0x) tc_plain_transform: 0 c (0x) tc_ShaderGLSLLink: 0 c (0x) tc_ShaderGLSLCompile: 0 c (0x) tc_ShaderValidation: 0 c (0x) xml_validation: 0 c (0x) ----------------------------------------------------- TIMER| shutdown misc: 328.32 us TIMER| InitVfs: 174.436 ms Writing the mainlog at /home/stefan/.var/app/com.play0ad.zeroad/config/0ad/logs/mainlog.html TIMER| CONFIG_Init: 3.26081 ms Sound: AlcInit success, using OpenAL Soft UserReport written to /home/stefan/.var/app/com.play0ad.zeroad/config/0ad/logs/userreport_hwdetect.txt TIMER| RunHardwareDetection: 11.316 ms TIMER| write_sys_info: 16.3904 ms TIMER| InitRenderer: 38.3028 ms TIMER| ps_console: 7.03005 ms TIMER| ps_lang_hotkeys: 4.01364 ms TIMER| common/modern/setup.xml: 299.301 us TIMER| common/modern/styles.xml: 132.678 us TIMER| common/modern/sprites.xml: 1.49723 ms TIMER| common/setup.xml: 272.034 us TIMER| common/sprites.xml: 577.78 us TIMER| common/styles.xml: 61.118 us TIMER| pregame/backgrounds/: 261.419 us TIMER| pregame/sprites.xml: 151.385 us TIMER| pregame/styles.xml: 21.294 us TIMER| pregame/mainmenu.xml: 46.4355 ms TIMER| common/global.xml: 6.1839 ms TIMER| common/modern/setup.xml: 193.296 us TIMER| common/modern/styles.xml: 154.253 us TIMER| common/modern/sprites.xml: 1.88632 ms TIMER| common/sprites.xml: 666.61 us TIMER| splashscreen/setup.xml: 41.302 us TIMER| splashscreen/splashscreen.xml: 26.2146 ms TIMER| common/global.xml: 1.23888 ms TIMER| common/modern/setup.xml: 164.865 us TIMER| common/modern/styles.xml: 128.654 us TIMER| common/modern/sprites.xml: 1.47501 ms TIMER| common/setup.xml: 254.602 us TIMER| common/sprites.xml: 514.137 us TIMER| common/styles.xml: 57.462 us TIMER| gamesetup/setup.xml: 229.43 us TIMER| gamesetup/styles.xml: 21.087 us TIMER| gamesetup/gamesetup.xml: 103.394 ms TIMER| common/global.xml: 1.50326 ms tex_dds.cpp(562): Function call failed: return value was -120102 (Invalid/unsupported texture format) Function call failed: return value was -120102 (Invalid/unsupported texture format) Location: tex_dds.cpp:562 (decode_sd) Call stack: (0x55c7f7aecdf5) /app/bin/pyrogenesis(+0x5e0df5) [0x55c7f7aecdf5] (0x55c7f7a9e7b1) /app/bin/pyrogenesis(+0x5927b1) [0x55c7f7a9e7b1] (0x55c7f7aa0047) /app/bin/pyrogenesis(+0x594047) [0x55c7f7aa0047] (0x55c7f7aa03e3) /app/bin/pyrogenesis(+0x5943e3) [0x55c7f7aa03e3] (0x55c7f7b0d3c0) /app/bin/pyrogenesis(+0x6013c0) [0x55c7f7b0d3c0] (0x55c7f7b0baeb) /app/bin/pyrogenesis(+0x5ffaeb) [0x55c7f7b0baeb] (0x55c7f7ae1a64) /app/bin/pyrogenesis(+0x5d5a64) [0x55c7f7ae1a64] (0x55c7f7ae3df2) /app/bin/pyrogenesis(+0x5d7df2) [0x55c7f7ae3df2] (0x55c7f78ef02c) /app/bin/pyrogenesis(+0x3e302c) [0x55c7f78ef02c] (0x55c7f78ef8a6) /app/bin/pyrogenesis(+0x3e38a6) [0x55c7f78ef8a6] (0x55c7f78e9c60) /app/bin/pyrogenesis(+0x3ddc60) [0x55c7f78e9c60] (0x55c7f78cc143) /app/bin/pyrogenesis(+0x3c0143) [0x55c7f78cc143] (0x55c7f7a8aed9) /app/bin/pyrogenesis(+0x57eed9) [0x55c7f7a8aed9] (0x55c7f7a1b450) /app/bin/pyrogenesis(+0x50f450) [0x55c7f7a1b450] (0x55c7f7a1443b) /app/bin/pyrogenesis(+0x50843b) [0x55c7f7a1443b] (0x55c7f7a6d882) /app/bin/pyrogenesis(+0x561882) [0x55c7f7a6d882] errno = 0 (Try again later) OS error = ? ^C(C)ontinue, (S)uppress, (B)reak, Launch (D)ebugger, or (E)xit? So I pressed D and got Sleeping until debugger attaches. Please wait. Debugger launch failed: No such file or directory [xcb] Unknown sequence number while processing queue [xcb] Most likely this is a multi-threaded client and XInitThreads has not been called [xcb] Aborting, sorry about that. pyrogenesis: ../../src/xcb_io.c:260: poll_for_event: Assertion `!xcb_xlib_threads_sequence_lost' failed. /app/bin/0ad: line 9: 5 Aborted (core dumped) "$pyrogenesis" "$@" This did not help the issue. After this finished, I uploaded all the files in /home/stefan/.var/app/com.play0ad.zeroad/config/0ad/logs However it would be nice to note that I used both the autociv mod and the ballanced maps mod. Disabling the ballanced map mod solved the issue. Edit: I want to add that I occasionally experienced a similar crash if I looked at the summary of a compled game and switched to the miscellaneous tab, disabling the mods solves the problem again... So @chiffoncake could you state if you used any mods? crashlog.txt interestinglog.html mainlog.html system_info.txt userreport_hwdetect.txt

I also what thinking about doing at that some point. But yeah, I was looking for excuse to be lazy and postpone it. A25 being around the corner seems a fair excuse. So if you post such a video, I would gladly see on your way of explaining. What might also be nice is to show how to add technologies, change phase requirements or create units similar the the women_house file. One of the benefits of the 0AD game engine is that practically anyone can make mods to test balance changes.

Maybe I might be a little late to the party and should have reported it earlier. I used to be on Linux mint 19 and now I am on Linux mint 20, famously based on Ubuntu. On both systems I also experienced a similar bug. When I go to set up a game and try to select a map by clicking on the "browse maps" and go to the random maps. Then when I move the mouse over some maps, the game crashes.

Jim and Tom seem not to be publishing a lot of youtube videos lately. I posted a video with making a tier list in mind. This video was to compare Kushites and Ptolemies and whether the belong in the same 1v1 mainland tier. I have also found an excuse for my stuttering speech/pronunciation, since I wanted to turn watching in an active engagement.

The Viper isn't playing Age of Empires2 these days ;P For the record, there were players in AoE2 which I would be never able to beat in a best of 5, but those players would never be able to beat The Viper in a best of 5. For the discord group, I am frequently in for a 1v1 so I could join. However if I would be online in discord, I could also visit the lobby so I don't know why to use the discord.

I think the problem arises from the fact that social systems were complex and differed between the factions as well. In the game we have for the citizen class: -helots -high ranking citizens such as the triarius or equites -low class citizens such as the velites -people who are not part of the core of the empire such as Nabetean camel riders and Parthian cavalry. Probably there are more examples. However it shows that if we aim for true historic faithfulness, we have to introduce several new classes.

I think Ptolemy IV is strong, but there are other strong heroes as well. I would prefer Cleopetra over Ptolemy IV. I think Ptolemy IV is not OP based on his stats, but Ptolemies as a whole do get stuffed with lots of goodies.

I ran some tests. 1 on 1 a basic swordsmen defeats an advanced pikemen and has 11 HP left and it promotes. I also tried a test with 52 advanced pikemen vs 52 basic swordsmen in the scenario editor and fairly close formation. 9 swordsmen survived though some had low HP. Their total remaining HP was 853 and they were all elite having thus 60% HP left. From this test it feels like pikemen don't really benefit from increased numbers.

One big difference between age of empires 2 and 0 ad concerning this topic is unit pathing. If you have a block of 7*7=49 kamayuks fighting against 7*7=49 champions, then you will see that a lot of the champions are looking to find a target and not actually fighting and contributing. This is an issue with age of empires 2 melee units. If you try the same with 0ad pikemen and swordsmen, you see that the swordsmen are fairly quick to all find a target. Unless we make pathfinding worse, it will not be like AoE2 Instead of looking at AoE2, look at 0AD and spectate some fights. The longer pikes do not make to much of a difference in 0AD.

Slingers are nice early on. You want to invest all your starting resources to pay dividends. The fact that a Ptolemaic player can build a barrack and train 6 slingers and save 180 wood is useful in the starting phase. Also you seem to be only thinking about men, but there are women too ;P (don't know if you heard that earlier) If we compare melee units, we need to remember that they are sometimes shot upon while the melee units don't attack (such as capturing). In those cases the pikemen seems to have the advantage. I also made some post on how useful pikemen are: The second title was just to troll a little and make a point of target dummies ;P. I called on purpose it "what if..." instead of "how do you think about if..." or "what would happen if..."

First of all, if it does not give major problems, there is no reason to remove it. These units are trained sometimes and I like to keep them as an option. Also I think we should consider the nature of 0AD as a community project. These units are someone's contributions, so it feels unfair (and maybe a little unrespectful) to cut it without strong reason. Also (this argument is not popular by me) 0AD is still in alpha, which means there is no reason to cut now it if you can cut the unit from the game later.

I think this has to be considered? Are there any record that compare the troops of brennus, sacker of rome, to the Achaemenid Persians? My guess would be that also the Gauls were armed inferior. This source speaks of civilizations met earlier and I believe the Phoenicians were among them. These civilizations were armored no better than the Persians. So would it be fair to assume that the Persians were as well armored as the Carthaginians, who were Phoenicians? On other main faction to compare them to would be the Iberians, but I don't know anything about their style. Is it fair to say that the Persians were inferior to all these factions?

@Yekaterina, I think it is nice that you provide arguments for both sides and list them. The point I adhere to most is However it is true that Mauryas are strong. If we would nerf them I would prefer another suggestion: Worker elephant takes 3 population(& cost 200 food). This increases the opportunity cost since if you used to make 5 worker elephants, that soaks up +10 population. Also it means that at the start you have 13 population instead of 11, so you have less free space. I think this is something game designers like to think. However I am not fully convinced it is actually firmly rooted in history. Against the Lydians for example, the persians had fewer cavalry and famously used their baggage train camels and winning the battle on foot. Persian infantry lost a fair share of battles, but there were victories as well and we need to remember that losses could easily have other reasons than just weak infantry.

1776

I registered with an old account, TDSatAWBW. The origins of that name lie here: https://awbw.amarriner.com/profile.php?username=the-deadly-shadow

I wouldn't mind putting my skills to the test. I assume the tournament will be played on A25. Also I think it should be defined whether map sizes are small or normal. If I were the weaker player I would prefer a normal sized map, meaning that attacks come a little later and supply lines of the enemy are longer, this would allow me to have a little more time before I need to be ready. If I were the stronger player, I would prefer a small map. So to avoid clashes on map sizes, I think there should be some rules about the map size. Also could you give a description how people select the factions they play? Are they allowed to repeat factions?

There is a more fundamental problem with the rankings. The ladder is based on 1v1 rated games. A lot of players (also those in the top 100) don't play a lot of rated 1v1 games. This is the reason why the podium almost didn't change. You don't often see players rated in the top 100 host rated games to defend/risk their rank. All these suggestions lower the rating of some very but inactive talented players. Which means that two players might have similar ratings but entirely different skill levels, after-all rating should be representative of skill level. If you want to clean the leader-board while keeping ratings intact, I would suggest multiplying the ratings with -1. Once a player completes a rated game, the new ratings get computed according to the absolute value of their rating. If there is a player with rating -1800, you know that this is a good but inactive player which would be more faithful than giving a 1500 rating.

addware.

Legions were composer of multiple unit types. Among them Velites, Hastati and triarii. So all these types of legionaries are in the game.

I did not mean to direct it at anyone personally, but rather to say that "if someone gets such an annoying situation, it is their own fault since they are the one that gave the orders". I think that we both try to be honest and constructive. If any idea seems flawed, it think it is better to voice concerns rather than leaving them below the surface.

If you get such an annoying situation, it is your own fault since you are the one that gave the orders ;P Also I was more thinking about giving each unit once a minute such an ability. However, my point remains valid: If you mismicro, it is your own fault. It might be conceptually simple. The solution would be give each unit an aura that makes melee opponents move faster and could be done easily. However the computational cost is not low as each unit needs to get an aura and there would be distance computations. A less taxing idea would be to let every melee unit check every step if there is an opposing unit within 10 meters (If there are in a 1v1 180 for both players, does the melee unit need to check for all 180 of them that they are not in range? and thus make 180 computations per melee unit). So unless someone has a smarter solution, I am afraid it makes the game to slow. This way you could attack a unit that is not supposed to be the target. If there is a single unit in the direction you want to retreat to, you can use that vector to get the speed bonus. Therefore only giving the bonus to the patrol command would be better. However that is gimmicky again, as in this case the attack command and patrol command would work different. Furthermore it feels wierd if only melee units could 'run'.

I think it is nice to see units running for their lives. It is gimmicky but it is not super harmful either. I think we can leave it as it is. I was thinking on creating something similar to the patrol command. You order your troops to battle-charge to a particular area and they do it using their run speed. There are things like status effects, so giving them reduced gather capacity seems to be also a possible status effect. Maybe I eventually get to try to mod it, as just chatting gets us nowhere. I would like the idea that once you give the command, the units are now out of control and attack viciously. That is fairly historically accurate, since sometimes if a command was given it could not be recalled. Also it creates a risk in ordering a battle charge. Furthermore it would be nice if it was a timed effect where it is unlikely to be able to use it twice. So you could decide to open with a battle charge and reach the opponent quickly. The second option would be to first engage in melee combat and once it starts, to use the charge to get the rear units into the action. The third option would be to see if you can win the battle without and use the charge to destroy the opponent when they try to retreat. A battle charge could be a way to overrun the opponent, but on the same time it could mean that your own units run to their death. It would make timing of the charge decisive. Also ranged units could be decisive if they can seduce the opposing player to order an ill-chosen charge. Anyway, the idea remains an idea until it is turned into a mod.

@PyrrhicVictoryGuy, I think the idea is cool. The thing is that you should make it as you envision it. I do not want to put my mark on your idea and pollute it with my views. I think if it is about getting it done right, it would be nice to have some good historical sources and see which unit types fit best. I am a little skeptical on food-based bonuses since people of all civilizations ate food and eating food was important to any of them. However I can say that elephants in p2 does not seem to be a smart idea.

It is not exactly 0AD, but I am a big fan of the SandRoman youtube channel.

If we are talking about AoM, I would like to push forward the idea of(possibly once a minute) having a battle charge ability. This would mean you send your (infantry) units in battle using the run speed for a short sprint. They would aggressively attack the first unit they see, so it can't be used for fleeing. Units doing a battle charge get the enraged bloodlust status effect, significantly reducing their gathering ability for a while.