Suggestions for 0 A.D.

[Ykkrosh]

Supporting orders while paused introduces some non-trivial implementation complexity - normally when you click a button in the GUI, the effect doesn't occur until maybe a quarter of a second later (to be compatible with multiplayer where we need to allow time for the message to propagate to all the players), so if the game is paused then you won't see anything happen at all when you click on GUI buttons, which is unhelpful and confusing. We'd need to change it so the GUI predicts what the game state is going to become (e.g. if you click to train a unit, it needs to predict that unit will be added to the training queue and predict the reduction in resources, and then somehow deal with unexpected situations like the building being destroyed before it's really started training the unit). It shouldn't be impossible to make it work well, but I don't think it would be easy.

It's definitely a feature that I consider very useful as a player, though - I only ever do single-player, not multiplayer, so I don't care about being good at the latter, and I like to have time to think while playing.

[Mythos_Ruler]

It's definitely a feature that I consider very useful as a player, though - I only ever do single-player, not multiplayer, so I don't care about being good at the latter, and I like to have time to think while playing.

Sounds kind of like cheating to me... The AI doesn't get to pause the game and all that jazz.

[fabio]

Sounds kind of like cheating to me... The AI doesn't get to pause the game and all that jazz.

Well, the AI can do millions of things every second, a human player can manage only one thing at a time.

[Mythos_Ruler]

Well, the AI can do millions of things every second, a human player can manage only one thing at a time.

Right, but the way the game works doesn't really allow the AI to do millions of things every seconds. The AI is constrained by the limitations of the game. 1 computation does not translate to 1 command. The human brain does millions of computations per second too.

[Dread_Boy]

Well, the AI can do millions of things every second, a human player can manage only one thing at a time.

Have you seen any professional StarCraft player playing with his/her own keyboard+mouse and all binds? Probably not otherwise you won't be stating that. Trust me, if you train hard enough you can do multiple things at the same time and as Mythos said AI is limited. For example I play this game since Alpha VIII and now I can win against 3 qBots but I don't consider myself experienced RTS player. You just need to be fast, that's all

[fabio]

Have you seen any professional StarCraft player playing with his/her own keyboard+mouse and all binds? Probably not otherwise you won't be stating that. Trust me, if you train hard enough you can do multiple things at the same time and as Mythos said AI is limited. For example I play this game since Alpha VIII and now I can win against 3 qBots but I don't consider myself experienced RTS player. You just need to be fast, that's all

Can you select 50 citizen of your choice in a group of 100? Yes, but this will require a lot of time. The AI could do this instantly.

The fact that you can beat an AI doesn't imply you are faster that it.

[historic_bruno]

I like to have time to think while playing.

You can still think with the game paused, only not send orders Though the current UI's pause mode is cruddy (you can't select things), that can be improved fairly easily. Another thing that helps is variable game speed options that don't require console magic.

[quantumstate]

A temporary workaround is Engine.SetSimRate(0.00001). The UI will be slow to respond to certain things though, e.g. things won't appear in the training queue instantly.

[ribez]

Have you seen any professional StarCraft player playing with his/her own keyboard+mouse and all binds? Probably not otherwise you won't be stating that. Trust me, if you train hard enough you can do multiple things at the same time and as Mythos said AI is limited. For example I play this game since Alpha VIII and now I can win against 3 qBots but I don't consider myself experienced RTS player. You just need to be fast, that's all

[av93]

Changing the Topic

2 things:

-It have been discussed that the General Discussion & Ideas forum its overflooded of "my 2 suggestions" topics.

So it's better pots here? What i should do to small thing that pass in my head?

-Guys have readed that you have push triggers to part 2. What about simple triggers for part 1, like those of Age of Empires 1 to make basic scenarios and campaings (Weren't really triggers, were more like winning conditions)

[feneur]

Changing the Topic

2 things:

-It have been discussed that the General Discussion & Ideas forum its overflooded of "my 2 suggestions" topics.

So it's better pots here? What i should do to small thing that pass in my head?

-Guys have readed that you have push triggers to part 2. What about simple triggers for part 1, like those of Age of Empires 1 to make basic scenarios and campaings (Weren't really triggers, were more like winning conditions)

More winning conditions is definitely going to be included, and since the game uses JavaScript for AIs etc it should definitely be possible to program your own triggers/use an AI to achieve your goals for starters. Sure it's a bit harder than using pre-programmed triggers, but also a bit more flexible, and most importantly it allows us to release part one a lot earlier. A very broad guess would be that including triggers/cinematics/story-based campaigns in part 1 would delay it with at least a year, probably more like 2-3 years. It's better to reach some kind of conclusion sooner and be able to get working on part 2 asap (Also, note that I say story-based campaigns, we do intend to include an "imperial campaign", kind of like the conquer the world gameplay in Rise of Nations, or the campaign mode in the Total War series, but with some unique twists of course )

[Veridagorin]

More winning conditions is definitely going to be included, and since the game uses JavaScript for AIs etc it should definitely be possible to program your own triggers/use an AI to achieve your goals for starters. Sure it's a bit harder than using pre-programmed triggers, but also a bit more flexible, and most importantly it allows us to release part one a lot earlier. A very broad guess would be that including triggers/cinematics/story-based campaigns in part 1 would delay it with at least a year, probably more like 2-3 years. It's better to reach some kind of conclusion sooner and be able to get working on part 2 asap (Also, note that I say story-based campaigns, we do intend to include an "imperial campaign", kind of like the conquer the world gameplay in Rise of Nations, or the campaign mode in the Total War series, but with some unique twists of course )

that would be cool. i realy like the charge feature in the total war series were you can only trample a the first 2 or 3 lines of the enemy units. will a battalion of heavy cavalry have a charge bonus like in total war?

[Mythos_Ruler]

I find the APM video kind of ridiculous. I propose that we do not have an APM counter for 0 A.D.

[Zeta1127]

That APM video is just Korean pro gamers showing off. I agree with Mythos Ruler, there is no need for 0 A.D. to worry about APM.

[Sef]

darn i hope 0ad isn't the kind of game where APM is the main key too winning, im not really good at multi-tasking on strategy games so i'd be screwed if it is. Hope you can find a way around this.

My suggestion is that all factions scout horse you start with at the beginning of each game be equipped with a ranged weapon so he can go hunt effectively because the melee scout horse you start with is useless for hunting because it can't seem to get a successful hit on fleeing animals. It would be good if there was a new hunting unit that takes a cart out and goes off killing wildlife and bringing back 200 food at a time.

[Zeta1127]

darn i hope 0ad isn't the kind of game where APM is the main key too winning, im not really good at multi-tasking on strategy games so i'd be screwed if it is. Hope you can find a way around this.

My suggestion is that all factions scout horse you start with at the beginning of each game be equipped with a ranged weapon so he can go hunt effectively because the melee scout horse you start with is useless for hunting because it can't seem to get a successful hit on fleeing animals. It would be good if there was a new hunting unit that takes a cart out and goes off killing wildlife and bringing back 200 food at a time.

The problem with that is not every civilization had ranged cavalry.

[chaosislife]

As to the forts, part of the plan is to eventually limit a player to just one per territory. For now however I just mod the template_structure_military_fortress.xml and set the build restrictions up as :

  <BuildRestrictions>
    <Category>Fortress</Category>
    <Distance>
	  <FromCategory>Fortress</FromCategory>
	  <MinDistance>90</MinDistance>
    </Distance>
  </BuildRestrictions>

this should have the effect of making them space out their forts. You could also try :

  <BuildRestrictions>
    <Category>Fortress</Category>
    <Distance>
	  <FromCategory>Fortress</FromCategory>
	  <FromCategory>CivilCentre</FromCategory>
	  <MinDistance>130</MinDistance>
    </Distance>
  </BuildRestrictions>

or something similar to try to limit them to one fort per territory right now. However, with the AI's there's a strong chance that they just won't build them at all with this setup.

[feneur]

As to the forts, part of the plan is to eventually limit a player to just one per territory.

Not sure what you mean here? Are you talking about a mod or something, because in the main game there will not be any such limit. A total limit is one thing, but a per territory limit cannot be done as we've done away with the idea to have a players overall territory limited in smaller provinces which means that all land owned by a player is one territory. It might not all be connected at all times, but if nothing else your goal should be to connect it

[Communist]

I really do not like the farm system. It has a limited amount of resources, which is quite unusual for RTS games, as well as not that much. I suggest that you either make a much bigger amount of resources for the farms, inifinite resources, or just make the workers simply rebuild another farm on the spot of the old one.

[Mythos_Ruler]

I really do not like the farm system. It has a limited amount of resources, which is quite unusual for RTS games, as well as not that much. I suggest that you either make a much bigger amount of resources for the farms, inifinite resources, or just make the workers simply rebuild another farm on the spot of the old one.

We already have a plan for improving and enhancing the farms. The current farming paradigm will be greatly improved and completely changed:

• Have a "Farmland" terrain where farming is bonused considerably (+50% or something).
  
• Farms become infinite. The major gameplay factor then becomes placement and fighting over/raiding the farmland patches situated throughout the map.
  
• Since farms are infinite, we'll add a "diminishing returns" gathering rate per gatherer. Essentially after about 5 gatherers on a farm it becomes much more effective to build a 2nd farm and so on.
  

http://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/1318

[Communist]

We already have a plan for improving and enhancing the farms. The current farming paradigm will be greatly improved and completely changed:

• Have a "Farmland" terrain where farming is bonused considerably (+50% or something).
  
• Farms become infinite. The major gameplay factor then becomes placement and fighting over/raiding the farmland patches situated throughout the map.
  
• Since farms are infinite, we'll add a "diminishing returns" gathering rate per gatherer. Essentially after about 5 gatherers on a farm it becomes much more effective to build a 2nd farm and so on.
  

http://trac.wildfire...com/ticket/1318

Ah, interesting. I hope that will be implemented quite soon. I am greatly looking forward to new progress.

[chaosislife]

Not sure what you mean here? Are you talking about a mod or something, because in the main game there will not be any such limit. A total limit is one thing, but a per territory limit cannot be done as we've done away with the idea to have a players overall territory limited in smaller provinces which means that all land owned by a player is one territory. It might not all be connected at all times, but if nothing else your goal should be to connect it

Ah ok, thats just what I'd originally heard. Is it just going to be limited to one fortress for the entire map? That could suck a bit......since I use the round celt fort as a super tower. Since they've got the two forts could the limit be higher for that one?

Also as to the fort limiting idea I had up there, there may be some issues with it, I just got some very strange errors involving the forts being completely unbuildable that I have to figure out was due to the code I put in or a bug somewhere else......since it also gave my celt enemy the ability to build my persian buildings from their celt unit, I'm kinda wondering how it could be my addition.

Edited May 30, 2012 by chaosislife

[chaosislife]

if you may dont construct close to a next Fort in a radius.

it's very odd, thats the exact same type of setup I have for my town centers and I don't get errors, but when I apply it to forts i get errors with the game not recognizing the template or something, causing the build buttons for the forts to not show up. It also causes other civs to get build buttons for building that they just shouldn't have.

Are you asking if it can be set up to not allow other buildings to be built in the fortresses territory radius? It could be done, but you'd have to edit the parent templates for every other building in the game to do it.

Edited May 30, 2012 by chaosislife

[feneur]

Ah ok, thats just what I'd originally heard. Is it just going to be limited to one fortress for the entire map? That could suck a bit......since I use the round celt fort as a super tower. Since they've got the two forts could the limit be higher for that one?

No, there is a limit to 10 fortresses per player/map, and unless testing shows that's too many or too few that number is going to remain

Also, note that the Celts doesn't have two fortresses, rather there are two Celts so to speak =) Gauls and Britons. Most likely they will be split into two proper civs as we've done with the Hellenic ones, originally they were going to be "sub-civs" of their main civ. I.e. when you got to the City Phase you were going to be able to choose either Gaul or Briton if you were playing the Celts, and either Macedon or Poleis (city-states) for the Hellenes. Now it's very likely that Celts will be split as well

i mean build 5 or more forts next each to other, its ridiculous this can happens in a game.

Why is it ridiculous that it can happen in a game? It might be ridiculous in real life, but even then it might make sense to more heavily fortify some areas. Also, remember that if you put all your forts in one place you're going to have less defense in other.

[Zeta1127]

Garrisoned fortresses that take advantage of overlaping firing arcs are a powerful definsive tool. When the AI is finally able to use siege engines more effectively, it won't be the advantage it is now, because a supporting army and/or navy is still important, even when gates are finally redone to complete the new wall system.