chrstgtr

So thread summary tabasco: you can use that mod but other people you play with might think you’re cheating. me: [ignore atrik] here’s a different solution that might help you Atrik: insult directed at me alre : don’t pick on atrik me: we’re not picking on him—he doesn’t care that people think he’s cheating and plays the victim at the same time atrik: “idc f u” also stop picking on me. conclusion: atrik is a nice guy?

Nice guy here.

You act like this is all me. It isn't. Literally every time you post your mod in people call you out and then you pretend you've never done anything wrong when nearly everyone you play with wishes you would delete the mod. Like here, you just want a different standard for yourself.

It’s not unjustified. He was told it was cheating and that people don’t like it. His response was I don’t care if the people I play with think I am cheating and that he would do it anyways. He took advantage of people’s good will and hesitancy to ban players. Once he did start to get banned, what did he do? Immediately complain that he was getting picked on. Just because he plays the victim doesn’t mean he is one.

If you are going to try to insult someone you should first use a dictionary to look up the words that you use in your insult. Your rebuttal should also be written intelligibly. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/metaphor

I agree. That is why I don't see any joy in mods that automate eco/production. But here we are.

Agree. @SKAcz: if you dislike eco constraints, you can also just play with higher resources (i.e., death match starting resources or the "gift from the gods" cheat).

One of the reasons, yes. I also think balance makes it pragmatically difficult (or impossible) to do, which I think you would agree with at this point you've tried too different versions that are presenting big balance issues. All personal preference. None of these are objective conclusions. None of these are valid reasons to do a change. I disagree with all these positions and actually say that the opposite. Because it is largely about personal preferences. Diving under buildings without consequence This isn't true. You do get damaged. You do die if you stay too long. To the extent you can rush without dying, I think that is a good thing. Basically no one has said that rush was a problem before. buildings acting like a timer for the soldiers to leave This is the same thing as "Diving under buildings without consequence" Healer auras invalidate arrows This is obviously a problem with healer auras. That is what should've been fixed. Note, non-random arrows largely invalidates healing as a concept. This is bad. Lack of control over arrows I kind of agree with you here. But I don't think manually control of arrows is actually used a lot/effectively. Manually control of arrows is possible with random buildingAI This is less important that buildingAI behavior because it occurs less frequently. -------- To the extent there are objective criteria, that objective criteria favors random arrows because random arrows was already balanced. We don't even know if it is possible to balance non-random arrows and your efforts to do so are getting more complicated but with no more success.

I like this (I think I actually suggested it myself at some time in the past) but I think it requires new code to do. Chariots has been something that everyone agrees needs to get changed but there isn't a lot of agreement on what that change should look like or the desired change (trampling) has to get new code to be possible. As a result, we have what we have for now.

This poll is equally clear that non-random arrows is disliked: 66% of votes cast called for random buildingAI for CC/fort ("Reverse the non-random arrows entirely," "Make buildings shoot at random unless targeted," or "Make the civic center and fortress shoot at random unless targeted") Note this 66% vote share is as great or greater than questions 3 and 4, which you point to as a clear issue). 61% of votes cast called for random buildingAI to be reversed for all buildings ("Reverse the non-random arrows entirely" or "Make buildings shoot at random unless targeted") The largest vote getter called for random buildingAI ("Make buildings shoot at random unless targeted") But a less popular buildingAI behavior was implemented ("Balance the CC, Tower, and Fortress arrows"). In every way, this was a disfavored option by the voters. To the extent there are "mixed feelings" it is whether a player should be able to override random buildingAI and manually target units. This doesn't consider the likely outcome of a rank order vote. This is like if you asked people what their favorite ice cream flavor was and gave them the options of dark chocolate, milk chocolate, and vanilla and the votes came out as below: Dark chocolate (3) Milk chocolate (2) Vanilla (2) In this scenario, it is clear the people want to chocolate but spread their votes out between two similar options. Same too here. Rebalancing non-random arrows is only popular to the extent that you ignore 2/3 of all votes. Put simply, non-random arrows is/was unpopular. No one has put forth a reason why a new mechanic is needed. By your own admission, the old mechanic worked fine. Change should not inherently be favored. It is also untrue that no one has explained why non-random arrows is bad or why random arrows is good. It is just a question of personal preference, which has clearly been expressed several times at this point by the larger community.

I think the bigger problem that you are getting at is that there is a problem with inf/cav balance.

There should be rigorous debate. If you look back in trac at some of the least popular changes, those were the changes that typically had the least discussion or where dissenting opinions where just outright ignored. Disagree on each version of the community mod being disliked. To be honest, all the versions before 26.6 were pretty widely liked at initial release and those changes are still widely approved of. There are mechanisms to reverse changes. Indeed, we appear to be in the midst of changes with buildingAI and melee rebalance.

I like both. With (2) already committed to a27, I see no reason not to include it. Speaking of a27 commits, I think the Iphicrates patch would also be nice to get into the community mod too. What is your plan for the next community mod, mostly cleanup with arrows/melee balance? I think that is a good plan. If you want to add new ideas, I think the wonder is ripe for reform. Ton of things we could do there. But right now it does basically nothing.

So it is a problem with doing random arrows and manually targeted arrows at the same time ("Make buildings shoot at random unless targeted")? I didn't realize it was built directly within buildingAI. Your choice if you want to try to pursue it. To your point above, the "Make buildings shoot at random unless targeted" might be still be problematic, so it might not be worth you spending time on it instead of just doing a total revert.

What do you mean? Wouldn't it just be a total revert? I'm not sure this is entirely true. At least not for early game. It is really hard to target arrows during rushes, especially when you are also trying to hide women/bring men by CC. Meanwhile, players don't like to stay under CCs for long so the defending player has to act really fast. To the extent people can do this, I don't think it's bad to reward them for their micro skills. To your point, late game it might be a problem still. But to the extent it is a problem, it would be similar to the impact of sniping, which isn't done a ton nowadays.

@real_tabasco_saucebalanced mainland (fixed) doesn't have chickens

Yes. Plan makes sense.

A similar buff is needed for x-bow.

Note, the mac replay I posted was from a 64 bit mac host. It's been awhile now, but I do think you are right that the OOS error has become more common over the longer term. I don't recall it ever happening when I first started playing in a21. Sometime after that it became a known but pretty rare thing. For a26 it feels like a once every 2-3 weeks in games that I am in

Depends on game but can be. It can also be an effective strategy where a lower player attacks a higher player in TGs (I think that is what you were getting at with the other portion of your reply). Not at home at the moment. But I'll watch later if you think I should. I think the complaints about archers are overstated by some. I agree archers are weak now but in some ways archers are actually better/very strong--it's impossible to do rush where you push near the CC now and archers are quite strong in early game once they get ahead. I think the melee patch in general is more complicated to understand. There are parts I like and others I dislike. I think there have been some good ideas on how to address it. If we ultimately follow the general approach in the melee patch, think it'll take a few tries to get it balanced as well as before (with the added benefit of getting rid of meatshield meta)

I would prob do 50w and moderate reduction of garrison dmg. Not stone because that is unfair to p1 slinger civs. 1 and 3 because: Cost because it is used as a way to circumvent unit production chokepoints (number of unit producing buildings and unit production time). Dmg because it is hard to stand under it and fight for more than a few seconds. Wouldn't do 2 because time hurts eco too much when you build the tower prophylactically. Open to other suggestions, the ^^^ isn't a strong opinion.

1 and 3 if non-random

Man you gotta accept some feedback when you’re clearly wrong…at least acknowledge it could’ve been better if you don’t think it’s necessary Then ask that. That is what I tried to in my suggested alternative question. You missed the point. Your third option choice could be random or non-random. Both could be hypothetically be “balanced.” Using the term “balance” also suggests an answer. It’s like asking a person “do you support (A) the good candidate or (B) the other guy. There is a suggested answer. No. First question is do you like 26.6, including its current values, more than pre-26.6. What I suggested is “do you want random or near-unit arrows.” For some, they could say “I want non-random but not at 26.6 value.” That person could say no to your first question. what I suggested is actually more favorable to your position

@real_tabasco_sauce suggestion: you should change the text of third option in the last Q. Everyone wants balanced arrows—some want random balanced arrows while others want non-random balanced arrows. I know that’s not what you mean but it’s unclear and is the type of option that suggests a “right” poll response. Options like below seem better: (1) non-random arrows with community mod 26.6 values (2) non-random arrows with different values than community mod 26.6 values (3) random arrows unless manually targeted (4) random arrows (pre community mod 26.6) OR, better, just ask the question straight up: “Should buildingAI have random arrows or attack the nearest unit” (1) random (2) attack nearest unit the second question is more straight forward and doesn’t get into the dirty details.

I'm not insulting you and I do not intend to--apologies if you there was a miscommunication. My point is that I recall very few instances where a "chicken rush" have been successful against good players. If that strategy was anywhere near as effective as you and your bro insist then good players would frequently employ the strategy. But that is very clearly not the case. To be honest, I don't recall a single instance where anyone has ever discussed it (aside from when or your bro bring it up, which used to be fairly often). I don't know what you want. I said it should be reversed. That is as concrete as possible. You asked for input then rejected it and said my input should be different if I felt the way I felt. You also keep dismissing what I have said as theory. That's nonsense. I have said it IS too strong. That is observed. You have agreed with this. I have said it was balanced before. Any deviation from a state of balance that results in more kills will disrupt balance. That is definitional. I feel like you keep changing the goalposts. E.g. There is a change needed because this is a better system-->rushes are too strong-->buildings should kill rushing units-->it is better for 0ad naive players. Or, saying people like-->people will like it-->let's disregard a poll-->let's get a new poll-->I asked some people and they complained about other stuff. I also feel like you haven't set forth any valid reason why you think this change should occur aside from there may be some 0AD naive players who don't understand this (never mind the fact that there are so many aspects of the game that are different from AOE and that 0AD is not and should not be a replica of AOE). This isn't productive. I don't feel you are taking any feedback here and just looking for feedback that you want/disregarding feedback you don't want to hear. This isn't how it is supposed to work. This is a community project. I get it--you/your bro care a lot and received a lot of unfair/mean criticism from others. But there is other criticism that comes from a good place. Don't forgot those, loud and silent, that may disagree with you from time to time.