krt0143

Who said I had any expectations? I'm just telling generally my first impressions, what I think might need some additional work. As I've already said and repeated I make no demands whatsoever, and I'm definitely not seeking to impose my view. I've spent enough time on this world (and especially in the Open Source community) to know you get what you pay for: If I pay you I tell you what to do, if I don't, you do as you like, period. Yes, my view is different. I thought some of you might be interested to have a different perspective. Again, this was no demand, more so since development has stalled (I'm told). Now if you don't want to hear my opinion, that's alright with me, just tell me so (I think you just did) and I'll shut up. Simple as that, no hard feelings. I'm not boasting, I'm just trying to explain I'm not a total newbie. In 0 A.D. maybe, but I do have some baggage. Sorry if this came across as boasting. Why would I?

Who doesn't. Not my experience. Just yesterday I set them to make a clearing. When I checked back some time (couple minutes) later, they were off cutting in a straight line from where they started, despite having still lots of trees really close to the storehouse. Anyway, not a huge problem, just not optimal. Especially when you're also managing more delicate situations elsewhere at the same time.

Except that I don't know how... I'm not a programmer.

Your own workers do it too, unless you micromanage them... Imagine building a storehouse in a wooded area and setting some workers to cut wood. Now instead of progressively clearing out the area around the storehouse, progressively moving further and further away from the storehouse, sometimes they leave in a straight line, and if you leave them be, they will be cutting wood far, far from the storehouse while there are still lots of trees much nearer... Since it's the same AI for both, but the AI player lacks the optimizing human oversight, I'm not surprised they sometimes do stupid things. That been said, we're back to resource gathering. I don't have any beef with the AI's resource gathering. It's its overall speed of decision, reactivity and omniscience which bothers me. Humans are fallible, can be caught unawares, if something is pointless, they decide to try something else. Speaking of which, unlike the AoE AI, the 0 A.D. AI does indeed sometimes try different things (usually different paths to come attack me), I'd like more of that. I like to be kept on my toes.

First, you don't need the ad hominem to get your point across. That been said, yes, I've been made aware that the game is currently in the doldrums, but then again I'm not demanding, I just make suggestions. Which are worth what they are, (general) you can pay heed to them or not. It's not like my life or well-being depend on it.

Do you people read what I write? I don't care being attacked, given I take my time it will happen sooner or later anyway. No, it's the way it happens which is annoying. Which is why I don't play PvP... My games, the ones I enjoy, last hours: I build my civilization, explore the countryside, find places to build advanced settlements, build them, and so on. While the AI tries to make an explosive expansion all over the place, I'm more like inching forward, slowly but unstoppable. Till I have caged the enemy in, and give it the final coup de grace. Now I admit this would probably bore most of you to tears, but I never asked you to adopt my play style. Sure, and that's what I'm doing. I've modded the whole game, first thing I did. Read (far) above for details, and I'm not finished yet. The point being I can do it, because I've got over 30 years of gaming and computer experience, and lots of free time. Other players would be lost. So I'm suggesting that you (0 A.D. team) make some adaptations to 0 A.D. to cater for more classic single player games (as opposed to just PvP games against the AI). It would go a long way towards making it more attractive to some players. IMHO and all that.

Yes, found it, thanks. Still, as I said in my edit above, it's well hidden... They should rename this button to "Player Settings", "Player" alone doesn't mean anything. Imagine the button "Game Type" being only called "Game"...

It's over there -> Nah, seriously, thank you. Uh-oh. Where is that menu you show? Mine is totally different: --Edit to add: Never mind, found it! (Well hidden, kudos... )

Sorry, actually no. This is not an economics game, it's a strategy game with a side dish of economics. Sorry but I don't see the connection with the speed clicking competition. No, not really. Resource availability only slows down the first phases, but inevitably later on you have more capacity to gather, and, after some point you have paid everything you needed to pay for (must-have buildings, techs), so your spending goes down while your income remains the same (unless you stop gathering, but that's not an imposed limitation, it's a choice). The earning/spending ratio is not linear, and while you starve in the beginning, you have more than you need later on, when your only expense is training fighting units. Obviously if you rush the enemy as soon as you can you won't really notice, but I like to take my time and I do. That's an unfounded supposition. I got my backside handed to me a grand total of 2-3 times (in the beginning), since that I've beat the computer over a dozen times, and 3-4 times I've abandoned the match because the game became too boring (entrenched situation it would take hours to sort out). TL;DR: By now I've got used enough to 0 A.D. to beat the computer without a problem. What I'm complaining about is not that the computer is too strong (it isn't. It's better than AoE 2, but still limited), I'm complaining it's not fun to play against it, because of the totally not-human-like speed and relentlessness. Yes, I know. It's kind of obvious it's streamlined for that, but it's a pity because it could easily also cater for those perverts who don't like PvP games... What it needs is more, and non-compulsory choices, so you can decide to do it this, or maybe that way, depending on the situation. That's where the interest is for single-player games. Single player PvP is absolutely pointless, the AI lacking the only thing humans have over it, creativity. I don't agree. Game designer is a job, much like film director, and among them you have the better and the less good ones. There is no surprise gameplay quality is progressively going down the drain nowadays marketing has the creative say. But I'm going OT. AoE was an improved copy of 1994's "Warcraft: Orcs & Humans". I know, I was there. Warcraft was revolutionary, and AoE (first of the name) was a me-too copy, but with (for the time) jaw-dropping graphics. Obviously it fathered a franchise, but they were intelligent enough to improve the handling and keep the good parts intact (well, I only bought AoE, AoE 2 and AoE 2's Expansions, so can't talk for the later ones).

Aha! So there is an undocumented difference? Yes, that was a skirmish map. Could we have a comprehensive list of differences between "scenarios" and "skirmishes" (which for me are just a type of scenario) in the Atlas Wiki page? Where do you do that? I searched, but didn't find it.

So it's a bug? Fixed settings, yes, but fixed by whom?... IMHO it's up to the scenario creator to fix them. Never mind the pop cap, since this is more or less a limitation of the game engine, but resources should be freely settable. Imagine a "Nomad" type map where you don't have the resources to build your initial Civil Center!

To test my new units I made a quick & dirty scenario with enough resources to pass immediately to the second age (yes, there are cheats for that but I'm old-fashioned that way). So I set all 4 of the Player 1's starting resources to 1000, started a game and -- My resources were of 300. Actually, whatever I put in there, in the game I get 300... It does not to take into account the "Resources" setting, even if the map specifies otherwise you'll get the default 300. WTF? I noticed in the game the map settings panel on the right stubbornly says "Starting Resources: Low (300)", but how do you tell it to actually use the map settings? I expected to find some settings option like "Starting Resources: Low/Medium/High/As specified", but didn't find it. The Atlas Manual just say the feature exists, mentions no caveats or addenda. (Note I solved my test problem by placing a bunch of "treasures" in my test map, but I'd still like to know how to tell the game to use the map settings. I mean, if this feature exists, there must be a way to use it, isn't it?)

That was it, now it works. I knew there must be something missing... Thanks a lot!

I'm making some Mercenaries, but since they shouldn't be available in unlimited numbers like you own champions, I've tried to limit their numbers using the "hero" units' limit system. So I added into their template this: <Identity> <VisibleClasses datatype="tokens">Ranged Archer</VisibleClasses> <GenericName>Elite Mercenary</GenericName> </Identity> <TrainingRestrictions> <Category>Elite Mercenary</Category> <MatchLimit>20</MatchLimit> </TrainingRestrictions> Unfortunately, as long as they have that "TrainingRestrictions" part, I can't train a single of them! The games states "You can train 20 of them" all right, but when I click on the icon nothing happens. It doesn't get added to the queue. Now when I remove this "TrainingRestrictions" part, I can train them just fine, so it is clearly something about the "TrainingRestrictions" syntax I've missed. Any ideas what it could be?

Proves there is no "one size fits all": I for one love water maps and using ships... As a player, I think resources should always be plentiful, but not necessarily easy to get at (i.e. far from your town center) -- except in maps where scarcity is the theme (desolate regions etc.). In those you'd expect to be short of some resources. To rephrase: Resources should be just a formality, except when their rarity is clearly part of the map's challenge. Because indeed different civilizations have different requirements, and should have very different requirements, lest they become standard copies with different skins. (Note I'm totally okay with some civilizations being stronger than others. Not only is this realistic (Romans...), but it is even expected. The only reason to carefully level all civilizations to a common denominator is PvP, and while this is apparently the main driver, please keep in mind it's just one game option among several.)

When I start thinking about getting offensive? That is usually when I have built and fortified my town(s), developed all technologies, and there is nothing more interesting to do than to get medieval on my adversary's backside... (I guess you expected some threshold amount of resources, but sorry, as I said above I only care about having enough.) By then I'm more in minute 50 than 10, to take your example. Both parties have fully developed tech trees and their best units, so any spearmen I might have (even fully upgraded) are considered reserve and/or home defense, while all slingers are inside the towers and the couple fortresses which protect my territory from the adversary till I decide to take care of him.

I'm not hoarding, I earn more than I need or want to spend. Now I could indeed minimax and redeploy all those units gathering to something more productive, but by then those 20-30 spearmen are too weak for serious fighting. I could also kill them to make place for champions, but then again I don't need that many units. I only hit the 300 units limit once. I'm used to AoE 2 and its 200 unit limit. So yes, "hoarding" might be considered "bad playing" in a PvP optimization strategy, but I don't need (or even want) "optimization", I want fun. Come on, call me stupid, don't be shy... What is there to understand? It's far from being rocket science, besides I've been playing AoE, which is pretty much the same thing, for 26 years now, I think I might have caught a notion or two. As about things I said having already been said by others, maybe that proves I might be on to something, other people having had the same idea (I never claimed originality or uniqueness BTW, I only said I don't play your official way, and I thought I read that you might be interested in making 0 A.D. more universal, but clearly I was wrong). Jeez that condescension...

Sure, but I don't have any problems with economy whatsoever: By the time I reach the 3rd age I'm literally swimming in resources. By the time I start considering conquest I have several thousands of each resource. Please keep in mind I might be new to 0 A.D., but I've been playing AoE for years, and generally computer games since before the first PC was invented... That's true, but it's still a step in the right direction, IMHO at least. It makes the game feel less scripted and deterministic. Once again, there are players who like platform games where the (only) point is to click on the right button at exactly the right nanosecond, and who enjoy spending many months perfecting their timings. Others hate that. - Tastes... And here we have the problem! "Lobby ranking" = conditioned to fit the already existing play style. "More of the same". If you want to think outside the box you have first to free yourself from that box (i.e. the standardized play style you guys have honed to achieve those rankings)... Short game analysis: There are some fundamentals in the game: You need to gather several types of resources, use those to build buildings, which in turn build more or less specialized units. Ideally you'd need to build them (almost) all, and research (almost) all the technologies (else you get ridiculous nonsense like Zerg rushes). But "almost all" means that ideally you should be able to chose a strategy: For instance only rely on a fast-moving cavalry-based army, or prefer ranged over melee, or don't bother with siege weapons, or whatever. Because that's where the game gets rich and interesting! What about somebody who only invests in resource gathering, and gets so rich he can rent very powerful mercenaries to do the dirty work for him?... Quid of a defensive vs. an aggressive player? Like, making sure the enemy can't harm you, but not really trying to destroy him either? Should be possible, and you should still call it a "victory", since you did achieve your goal, and denied the opponent's one. That is what I mean by thinking outside the "RTS - PvP" box.

Yes, that's my complaint: I don't want to do it always in the same tired way. That's why I'm modding the game, and why I create my own scenarios. Unfortunately I can't mod the AI...

What's "eco tech"? I don't think I recognize this one (do Brits have it? I'm always playing Brits). Anyway, thanks for the link, but that's precisely how I do not want to play... The problem is that if you can write a step-by-step instruction, you can as well automate the whole thing, create a macro, there is no point involving a human, not this human at least. I'm a creative, I want to plan, plot, scheme, but certainly not calculate... That's why I create my own scenarios, totally skewed, bizarre scenarios, where you need to think outside the box and find ways to adapt to some always new, unique situation. Sorry, playing one after the other "create 50 this, then create 20 that" type scenario and trying to optimize your timing isn't fun for me. I have always hated platform games too. YMMV and all that. I do not say that I'm right and you're wrong, it's simply that our tastes and what we're looking for in this game differ, that's all. I definitely want to lower the game speed -- for the AI! (48th take : ) What I want is an enemy who has human-like limits. I do not want to fight a monster which can manage two dozen production queues simultaneously and has the relentless obstinacy of a Terminator! But I don't want to face a senile slug either. I'm pretty sure there must be a setting possible between those two... Just saying.

Does it? IIRC it says difficulty level changes the AI's resources gathering rate, and the easiest levels also have a slower research, training and building rate. I'd like to have a slower unit training rate, without the resource gathering limitation. (Or ideally, ways to set all those parameters to your liking). - On "Very Easy" the AI is a pushover, totally apathetic. It does send some units my way, not too many, but builds no ships and no siege weapons. It's a good setting to get your bearings, but gets quickly boring. - On "Easy" it does send a huge lot of units my way, a never ending host of units actually, but only a single ram every now and then. Manageable, but the AI's inhuman relentlessness still leaves a bad aftertaste, it should mark a pause from time to time... - On "Normal" it sends a real deluge of units my way, and dozens of rams, to the point I'm totally swamped: The came consists at trying to survive as long as possible (usually not very long...). I haven't tried the other difficulties, on those I guess the AI instantly fills the map up to the treetops with units...

Dumb but lightning fast! And given this game is a race, my (hopefully) superior intelligence doesn't really come to play. The AI speed overwhelms me long before I manage to bring my elaborate plans () to fruition... (I'd really like the AI to be slower. Not dumber, not poorer, not whatever, just slower.)

They can afford to be slow, since they are close to invulnerable... Seriously, they might be less of a pain on tiny maps, but I play on giant maps, and thus have to position groups of axemen on all paths the AI might use to send rams my way, because rams might be slow, but they will have finished razing my town(s) well before my pedestrian anti-ram squads reach them... (Note I did something similar for my anti-siege squads in AoE2, except I used chevaliers, which moved faster.) And I'm more worried for the human player in the human vs. AI game, the AI has the advantage of being both omniscient and lightning fast, always optimizing its troops and able to instantly recover after about any kind of disaster. The poor standard single-core 1 Hz human using a clunky remote interface to the computer is really at a disadvantage here.

What's a TG? Yes, that's precisely what should be avoided at all cost. For the game to be fun you need to really need all those different units, ranged units to soften up the enemy, melee units to protect the ranged ones, cavalry to make quick movements (and scout), fortifications to protect your city, and some heavy, slow, specialized units to breach fortifications, and so on. In short, it should be a more sophisticated version of the "rock-paper-scissors" game, each unit having its strength and weakness, all completing each other, and you can't possibly win without using all of them, because if you're all "rock", the opponent will build lots of "paper" and you're toast. For this reason there should not be any "superunit", able to run the show all on its own, because else there is no point in creating all the other units!... The game becomes just a boring race to the point you can create that superunit and flood the adversary with them. There is a reason heroes are limited to 1 copy. Maybe 0 A.D. siege units need some similar limitation?

Siege towers should simply be a means to bypass walls, like they were in reality. The point of a siege tower was to 1. clean the top of the wall of defenders (by being able to shoot down on them), and then 2. let your own soldiers easily get up there using the stairs inside the siege tower. (Disclaimer: I saw there are siege towers in 0 A.D., but didn't experience them yet in the game, so I don't know what they actually do/don't do.)