All Activity

A lot of players do this trick : Garrison rams in a building (fort most likely but possible to make it from workshop) Ungarrison them on approaching siege, then just after they land a hit, garrison them to safety. It's annoying because you have no way to react fast enough to kill the trickster ram. You can still : Surround your own rams with enough soldiers so that the opponent rams won't be able to unload too close to them. Surround your own rams with melee on stand-ground stance (need less then for 1 but also less safe for you own rams, you might be able to kill enemy rams though). Give up on ramming the fort and find an alternative (catapults, capture the fort, ignore the fort..). The odds that your opponent use anything else then the default garrison hotkey to do this are extremely low.

metadata.json commands.txt

A turn in a 4v4 can be quite long, so there may have been more time than you expect for these inputs to be entered. however it is a bit fishy. Maybe screen record part of the replay to see what this looks like? Or maybe give the replay so we can watch it.

His average time per move for this part of the game was 1.43 seconds, which seems completely human, further pointing to his innocence. Average time per move for the entire game (except the end) for all players: Zekromus (1628) 0.98 sec King_Okocha (1498) 2.38 sec jimo (jimo) 3.49 sec Decger (1623) 1.52 sec Atrik_III 0.91 sec jbc (1532) 0.93 sec acaradeperro (1274) 2.36 sec RangerK (1588) 1.92 sec These stats are so interesting. I've never dug into a game file before. It would be cool to show avg time per command in the stats at the end of a game.

Turn 6766 → 22:33.2 Garrisons 0.2 seconds after attack. Turn 6784 → 22:36.8 Garrisons 0 seconds after attack (at the same time). Turn 6799 → 22:39.8 Garrisons 0.6 seconds after attack.

Player 8 was yours truly. Player 1 was Zekromus. 1) garrison of the unit happens the very TURN AFTER the attack. Too fast for human reaction, right? Because I think a turn is 0.2 seconds. Can anyone confirm? turn 6766 200 ... cmd 8 {"type":"attack","entities":[11066,11525,11526,11529,11740,11741,11742,11744,12119,12389,12973,13259,13261,13264,13265,13266,13269,13270,13271,13276,13437,13438,13439,13440,13495,13517,13518,13519,13625,13627,13653,13654,13655,13656,13710,13711,13712,13750,13771,13841,13842,13843,13971,13973,14059,14060,14061,14620,14621,14632,14633,14654,14714],"target":12240,"queued":false,"pushFront":false,"allowCapture":false,"formation":"special/formations/null"} end hash-quick d0874eabce12f2f4dd5b62dd37b0d99b turn 6767 200 cmd 1 {"type":"garrison","entities":[12240],"target":10148,"queued":false,"pushFront":false,"formation":"special/formations/null"} end 2) garrison of the unit happens 3 turns after the attack on the unit. 0.6 seconds. turn 6799 200 cmd 8 {"type":"attack","entities":[11066,11526,11529,11740,11741,11742,11744,12119,12389,12973,13259,13264,13265,13266,13269,13270,13271,13276,13437,13438,13439,13440,13495,13517,13519,13625,13627,13653,13654,13655,13656,13710,13711,13712,13750,13771,13841,13842,13971,13973,14059,14060,14061,14620,14621,14632,14633,14654,14714],"target":12240,"queued":false,"pushFront":false,"allowCapture":false,"formation":"special/formations/null"} end hash 144bce974a7c9b445307dceabbc89631 ... turn 6802 200 cmd 1 {"type":"garrison","entities":[12240],"target":10148,"queued":false,"pushFront":false,"formation":"special/formations/null"} 3) but then there's also this. Garrison of the unit happens in the SAME TURN as the attack on the unit. turn 6784 200 cmd 1 {"type":"garrison","entities":[12240],"target":10148,"queued":false,"pushFront":false,"formation":"special/formations/null"} ... cmd 8 {"type":"attack","entities":[11066,11525,11526,11529,11740,11741,11742,11744,12119,12389,12973,13259,13261,13264,13265,13266,13269,13270,13271,13276,13437,13438,13439,13440,13495,13517,13519,13625,13627,13653,13654,13655,13656,13710,13711,13712,13750,13771,13841,13842,13971,13973,14059,14060,14061,14620,14621,14632,14633,14654,14714],"target":12240, ======================= Probably #3 precludes the possibility of a script. Amirite? If so, then it was a coincidence - three times in rapid succession, the moment I attacked, he made the independent decision to disappear? One of you experts please help me with this. I'm 100% certain about all this, but just in case my cheating allegation was false, here you go:

100 Food

cmd 1 {"type":"tribute","player":1,"amounts":{"food":100}} so cmd X ... "player":X

I see this as an absolute WIN! EDIT: You guys might as well ban the building from multiplayer. EDIT2: I'm out of it today. This is trubute, not Market barter.

can we get rainbolt in 0AD to find out JC's house and call in a raid? gotta see how he lives to become so op

What's the command? The syntax?

You can sent yourself resources through a command. This might seem useless, but It is not cleanly programmed You can obfuscate the statistics

Me: phoeb6 Oppenent: JAS-39_Gripen-F Banned me from a rated game, because I was winning. metadata.json commands.txt

Oh sweetie, thank you for being so cute. And you're welcome!

Moderation has already been warned of your behavior. Thank you for participating.

here,

Good to know

I was there a few weeks ago. Magical place.

I'm glad to see all this discussion In the future we can try some speed balancing to see how things turn out. @Dakara I see what you are saying about cavalry, but part of balancing CS units is considering their economic roles. I recall we discussed some naval balance stuff, maybe it was in the dedicated topic. We can certainly continue to tweak the naval balance. Scout ship to p1, also nerfing the scout ship a little, decrease fire ship wood cost. I can also add in the fix for the Kushite fire arrows technology.

I don't see any parallel between the naval rebalance and a cap on the number of cavalry available.

You are the true 0ad influencer, @JC (naval supremacist). You've made my day. thanks

The naval rebalance deserve its own new topic Ideally we also get some feedback from single players who play a lot more naval than us

Stop being salty and click the invite! Ok ok @TheCJI edited my previous post ok? I have no interest in arguing with you. Take whatever problems you have to the disputes channel

yes, forgot to mention it's annoying and will be debated and hated by a lot BUT, they implemented this new naval system in a similar fashion so who knows

I mean, you would try not to kill the horse, but capture it, no? That sentiment is very understandable. You seem to have reached a point where you have a good understanding of the basics of most/all civilizations, hence why you notice that some units being equal for certain civs doesnt really feel right. But there is a counter-argument for more differentiation, as it is more complex, especially for newer players. When you first pick up the game, you would be happy if you could rely on a spearman doing the same no matter which civ you are, no?