krt0143

Of what? Of a mundane task? Well, selecting a large group of units doing something, embarking them on a ship, then disembarking them somewhere else. More often than not many/most of them will start running to return to their ancient start locations, wherever those might be... Here we go again with the personal attacks. Seriously, can you ever have a conversation as an adult? Yes, if you don't like some gear in your car, don't use it. Sure. /facepalm The frightening thing is that you're actually part of the dev team. That both explains some things and promises for the future. I'm out of here. I don't have neither the patience nor the need to endure self-absorbed children. I liked the game and thought I'd invest some time in it, but now I understand why everything here is empty and silent.

Okay, I still don't know why it does this, but at least I found how to fix it: Editing the resulting map's XML file I found following nonsense: "TriggerScripts": [ "scripts/TriggerHelper.js", "random/survivalofthefittest_triggers.js" ], and looking into the "Survival of the Fittest" script, I found that indeed it disables building, the point of that map being to survive successive waves of enemies (not water!...)... I still wonder how this ended up in my "Flood" map. Editor bug feature?

From what I was told setting units to "defensive" makes them always record their current location and go back to it, even for mundane tasks. It's that second part, the mundane tasks, that point #1 addresses. Sure. Another, similar solution is to not play 0 A.D... Seriously, since when "avoiding problem" = "solving problem"? "Defensive stance" is a necessity outside of PvP games. Sorry but your argument sounds much like "Personally I don't need it, so there is no need for it". Indeed, horses for courses. It might make little sense in PvP, but I play exclusively single player games, and with limited units (can't train more than x of that unit, even if the previous ones died), so "defensive" is mandatory. I can't afford to lose unique units because they decided to chase some passing enemy while I wasn't looking. And I play on giant maps, so "wasn't looking" is bound to happen a lot. To put things in perspective, if my kill/death ratio in the end is below 20:1 I consider I was sloppy. See, it's a totally different game... I absolutely need to be able to tell my idiot units they should only go attack when I've decided they should, at a precise moment. There is that cheesy tactics to thin out the AI enemy forces before an attack consisting in sending a fast unit near the enemy lines to lure enemy units back to your kill zone. Do this a couple times and everything will be much easier... Before "enhancing" something*, one needs to know the basics. Like for instance how things work, besides the AoE fundamentals every gamer knows by now. The problem is that 0 A.D. is much like, but not a 1:1 AoE clone, and all those nasty, annoying, unwelcome noobs struggle with the unexpected differences, especially with the rebellious AI: Dumb AIs which take initiatives are a sure recipe for disaster. * Besides, I'm sure it's about enhancing PvP games, which is utterly irrelevant to me. Popularity is not a metric for manuals! A good manual you read once and then forget. But no need for a full 80-page manual. What the game (desperately) needs is the chapter coming right after the existing in-game tutorial: A short and concise explanation of how to control your units' AI. (See further up: Units do and don't, Why and how. Keys, commands and shortcuts to use. Special functions and controls. (etc.)) I'm thinking at most about 1-2 pages worth of text, and included in the game, easy to find, not hidden in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard"...

It would be a good thing to put in a manual. Chapter: Unit control Units do and don't, Why and how. Keys, commands and shortcuts to use. Special functions and controls. (etc.)

So it's the exclusive private club one has to earn his entry in. Got it... I hate online video tutorials with a passion. How to waste 10 minutes about something which could had been written in 2-3 phrases: Useless. I'm of the generation which had learned to read, and reading is my preferred medium of learning. But okay, that's me. As for the tutorials, maybe, but with a big caveat: If I judge by the content making tutorials on this site, most I've seen are well past their "best before" date, describing things which are no longer true. Unfortunate, but to be expected on a WIP project. Others are simply besides the point, because written by people with completely different priorities than the average modder like me. Example: Spending an inordinate time on how to package a mod for uploading on mod.io, but omitting to explain how to create said mod... TL;DR: Not so many. The simple step-by-step explanation on how to create a civilization or a map still eludes me... I don't need it anymore, but that's 200 posts and a month later.

Some maps have unexpected scripts which the editor doesn't mention, and which only appear when playing the map (and also mostly don't work, with or without little error messages). Example the "Flood" random map: I played one created inside the game (it was normal, had nothing special), but I also created one in the editor, which in the game had some astonishing differences: First of all impossible to construct any 1st age buildings! They were gone, not just disabled, even the icons were gone! No docks, no farmstead, no storehouse, no civic center, at least houses were still allowed... Second, soon a little message appeared, warning me of an "incoming wave", with a countdown -- but nothing happened. Very disappointing... Why is the editor version of that random map so completely different (silly building permissions, broken countdown to something)? I've checked "flood.js" and "flood.json", but as far as I understand the code, they just contain the random generation parameters. Where did the editor find that broken countdown script and those unfortunate changes in building permissions? I'd like to either prevent it or fix it, whichever one.

Well, the point was actually to not scare away any new users... One gets used to everything, even the worst. If one stays long enough. I'm afraid most people won't. We're in an instant gratification era, games are plentiful, so saying new users should just accept the abuse in the hope it will eventually get better doesn't help. See, that is specifically what I was talking about! Somebody who wants to try out 0 A.D., has absolutely no chance of ever finding out that command exists! For him, 0 A.D. will be an annoying game with uncontrollable units. I'm vocal, annoying, and yet it took me one month (and 198 forum posts) to hear about this. I'm really afraid others won't have the patience -- or just the available time. If (general) you want to keep 0 A.D. as an exclusive private club that's fine, but in case you want to make it a popular game, sorry, this won't do: Either anybody (including dirty nasty newbies!) can immediately feel at home in this game, or it will remain a wallflower. (Just my 2 cents worth and all this.)

There might be a way to control that constant second-guessing, but sorry, if any new user needs to ask and ask again to have the secret passphrase, it's like it didn't exist. Sorry, but for any new user, 0 A.D. is a game where your units don't obey, but go their own ways in the most inappropriate moments. My point was: It's better to have simple defaults and the extras as optional options, than be drowned by uncontrollable options and unable to do the simplest things. This might change the day 0 A.D. has a full player manual, with neat explanations of how things work and how to do everything, but I'm probably too old to see that day. Till then, KISS principle: "Auto-gathering", "auto-returning" and all other "auto-" should be optional, not default. Or gameplay settings options which default to "off" on a new install.

Suggestion: Make the unit orders more logical for new users. I have problems with the (otherwise great) feature of "go there, do something, and then come back": The "Oh cool, they come back!" becomes all too often "Aw crap, they go away...". I waste inordinate amounts of time trying to catch stupid units deciding they have to go/return to some point on the other side of a "giant" sized map, instead of staying put and wait for my orders. And no, the attack movement doesn't necessarily help: For instance what can you do when unloading unit groups from a ship, and they all start scuttling away like scared cockroaches? While you need to take care of some urgent matter on the other side of the map? Wouldn't it be real nice if they stayed put, waiting for you to tell them what to do? What I'm suggesting is to reverse how it (seems to) work right now: Unit stances ("aggressive", etc.) should only and exclusively determine how a unit will react to enemies in its vicinity (or being attacked). Units should not remember where they were when receiving a standard command (standard right click), nor try to go back there when they consider they have finished their task. Never, ever. Units should remember where they started from and do their "do something and then come back" thing only when specifically ordered so (Key+right click). That "memory" should only last for that specific task, i.e. when they come back they forget about everything, and are ready for new type #2 or #3 orders. Repairing a dropsite shouldn't be an invitation to gather. When building one, okay, that makes some sense. But repairing my dock is just that, a repair, and I shouldn't have to catch the repairers before they vanish into the hinterland to cut wood... It's even more annoying with the "Norse" civ which has a dropsite ship. Each time I repair that one (and it happens often!), my repairers scuttle off to cut wood... What this changes, is that you won't find yourself chasing after units which, for some unfathomable reason, kept a memory of some past location, and won't lose it unless you memorize a new location, which is just shifting the problem but not solving it. When you have 300 units to micromanage, of which 150 have a mind of their own, your head explodes. People trying to second-guess your intentions is already annoying with normal humans, it gets horrible with hundreds of stupid-but-lightning fast AI units... I guess you all have got used to it, and probably don't even notice it anymore, but for new users it's a major pain in the neck, compounded by the lack of documentation. Here you are, making two coordinate but separate attacks on very different places on a giant map, all the while the AI is trying to storm your CC somewhere else, and you need to spend waste most of your time catching your rebellious units... Now I expect a long list of "But we're used to this!", "That's how it should be!" and other "You don't understand anything!" posts. To avoid polluting this thread with the coming flamewar, I've created a separate thread about this too. Please be so kind to comment there.

It's about making the unit orders more logical for new users. I have problems with the (otherwise great) feature of "go there, do something, and then come back": The "Oh cool, they come back!" becomes all too often "Aw crap, they go away...". I waste inordinate amounts of time trying to catch stupid units deciding they have to go/return to some point on the other side of a "giant" sized map, instead of staying put and wait for my orders. And no, the attack movement doesn't necessarily help: For instance what can you do when unloading unit groups from a ship, and they all start scuttling away like scared cockroaches? While you need to take care of some urgent matter on the other side of the map? Wouldn't it be real nice if they stayed put, waiting for you to tell them what to do? What I'm suggesting is to reverse how it (seems to) work right now: Unit stances ("aggressive", etc.) should only and exclusively determine how a unit will react to enemies in its vicinity (or being attacked). Units should not remember where they were when receiving a standard command (standard right click), nor try to go back there when they consider they have finished their task. Never, ever. Units should remember where they started from and do their "do something and then come back" thing only when specifically ordered so (Key+right click). That "memory" should only last for that specific task, i.e. when they come back they forget about everything, and are ready for new type #2 or #3 orders. Repairing a dropsite shouldn't be an invitation to gather. When building one, okay, that makes some sense. But repairing my dock is just that, a repair, and I shouldn't have to catch the repairers before they vanish into the hinterland to cut wood... It's even more annoying with the "Norse" civ which has a dropsite ship. Each time I repair that one (and it happens often!), my repairers scuttle off to cut wood... What this changes, is that you won't find yourself chasing after units which, for some unfathomable reason, kept a memory of some past location, and won't lose it unless you memorize a new location, which is just shifting the problem but not solving it. When you have 300 units to micromanage, of which 150 have a mind of their own, your head explodes. People trying to second-guess your intentions is already annoying with normal humans, it gets horrible with hundreds of stupid-but-lightning fast AI units... I guess you all have got used to it, and probably don't even notice it anymore, but for new users it's a major pain in the neck, compounded by the lack of documentation. Here you are, making two coordinate but separate attacks on very different places on a giant map, all the while the AI is trying to storm your CC somewhere else, and you need to spend waste most of your time catching your rebellious units... (Also posted this in the suggestion thread, but made a copy here for the discussion I feel coming... )

Okay, this is clearly not the right thread for posting bug reports, but since I don't know a better place: Technology "Clinker construction" states "Ships +10% Movement Speed", but modification is "multiply": 1.25". Now I'm not very good in math, but that would be 25% in my books. Wrong description, or wrong multiplier?

Wouldn't it be easier to just print them out? That's what I do (my memory is quite bad).

I see. Yikes, given the amount of hotkeys this would cover the whole screen, and probably span several columns...

How does that work? If I edit this map, and change it to 2-players & other civilizations, will it: change all random maps' start conditions accordingly? break the game and open a black hole swallowing my computer, house and neighborhood? I'd be tempted to bet #2. What a peculiar way to store settings... --- Edit What do you know, it worked! Thank you!

I you mean in the game, there is a comprehensive list of Hotkeys in the options, even accessible during a game (Menu/options/hotkeys). Atlas, the editor, is lacking this...

Knowing what it should be like is not the same as knowing what to put in there... Assuming those discrepancies are really errors on the website's part. I learned for instance that the missing texture swatches was a known bug of a26. Things like that I can't really guess, and the danger is that I might break more things than I fix (see textures). I have a very underdeveloped Dunning-Krüger... The only thing I can do, is put new/recent/a26 screenshots in place of the existing ones, and one could debate the utility of that. What is really missing, is for instance a list of shortcuts and stuff like that, things I don't know right now. You can make me the same offer in a year. You mean the source code? Well, unfortunately I can't understand that.

So... I think I've observed that the entry in "template_player.xml" indeed limits how many you can have at a given time, but the "TrainingRestrictions" entry inside the unit file fixes the maximum amount you can train during the whole game session. Is that true? I'm using it to manage my "mercs" (champion units I've built because Britons are champion-starved): There are several types (pikes, archers, siege) but to keep some balance, you can only have a limited amount of them at the same time: Their general limit is 20 mercs at any time, but you can buy 30 of each type (except siege, which is unique, like a hero unit), so you can mix & match depending on what you need: 20 archers, or 20 pikemen, or 10+10. It seems to work as intended, but I've not tested it really extensively either. I'm wondering if I won't make all high grade (champion units) a limited resource (only x of them available during a game session). After all, populations were very limited back then, and highly trained/exceptional units were extremely rare and long to train. If you're being reckless, at some point you should run out of them. Now of course the problem is the AI, if it can't handle that limitation it will eventually "run out" and become an easy prey. And I'm indeed afraid it can't handle it, having seen it waste its unique heroes unnecessarily, one after the other, for no purpose (once an AI hero unit attacked my fortress all alone, under the fire of 2 towers and the fortress itself. Needless to say it died...). Now since I always play the same civilizations, I might do this just for my civilization, and let the AI wield its unlimited unit cornucopia as before. Hmm.

Is there somewhere a file with the editor's (Atlas) settings? My problem is simple: When you start the editor, it always defaults to "8 players" and the first player is always "Han". Unfortunately for me, the maps I make are all 2-player, and the starting civilization is rarely "Han" (mostly "Britons", now "Norse")... After a time it becomes a pain to always have to change this manually, is there a way to change these defaults to something more suitable? Okay, I've found "\simulation\data\settings\player_defaults.json", but while changing it changes the players default colors just fine, the editor royally ignores any civilization changes I make in there. It's always "Han", period... Also, is there a way to make the editor default to 2-player games? I will never ever make an 8-player game (not before 0 A.D. can handle extra-humongous super-giant maps), so it's just wasted time having to dial it down to "2" each and every time.

I found another map which, when generated in the editor at bigger sizes, goes totally out of whack: "Archipelago". Much like many other maps ("Hellas" for instance), the bigger the map gets, the less water it contains, at "Giant" there are just a couple puddles left. Here is a screenshot of an "Archipelago" map, generated at "Giant" size. Does that look like an archipelago to you?... As you see there isn't any point building a dock here. Not for those couple ponds...

Pray tell, the "infantry_swordsman_b.xml" has a GenericName "Axeman", but is indeed carrying a sword. Is that supposed to be like that? ---Edit: All right, the unit has indeed an ax in his initial "_b" level (???), but it switches to a sword when promoting. If there is no way to name the three promotion levels differently, I'd suggest either a generic name ("Some such warrior"), or naming it "Swordsman", since it has a sword during 2/3 of its career (and most importantly, in the elite phase, the one you'll normally see the longest). Just my 2 cents worth.

No, no, definitely not. I didn't touch the shore ("land" textured), I only raised/smoothed the underwater geometry. To put it differently, I hadn't to repaint anything to keep the shoreline looking good. And yes, I added trees and fish. Moved some trees around too, but not on Elephantine island. Anyway, I found this suspicious so I did a simple test: Open editor, create a random 2 player "Elephantine" map (giant size, although I don't know if this changes anything), save it. Quit editor. Reopen editor, load map: Errors. Note those errors also appear when trying to play the map.

Since we're on Elephantine issues: I created a new giant Elephantine map and was editing the shoreline to create some spots where both me and my opponent could build our docks. Then I saved, quit the editor and got back to it a little later. When loading the map, the editor threw a lot of errors. Don't know what they mean, all I know is I didn't modify anything on those Kushite units (I guess the Gaia units on the Elephantine island), I was just raising/smoothing shorelines. Here is what she said: Seems it want to put some of those units into something else and can't. Why??? I didn't change anything about existing Gaia units, but I did add a tree or two, and some fish, I like fish. That can't have changed the unit numbers, does it? I'd assume the new units go after the existing ones, don't they.

I see. That's a little too complicated for me... But I guess it will be integrated to the next version (a27?)?

The possibilities are endless, especially when it thinks detecting German bad words in an English-language forum...

Uh, all I know is that I'm using a recently (last month) downloaded a26 and no, giant Elephantine maps are (still?) broken.