Of course it bothers me when you say things like this: I can't understand how you can say that SC2 is slower. I doubt you even play it. But it doesn't matter. You’ll find very few people on this forum pointing fingers at those they believe are responsible for this project’s lack of success, and you’re one of them. And I’m not even sure you know who you’re pointing fingers at.   That’s perfectly fine. You don’t have to be interested in it. A challenge that originated within the community itself, presumably lacking the credentials of representativeness that, for some reason, you have the authority to assign after some months roaming the forum. Very similar challenges can be found in undisputed successes of the genre, just have a look at the aoe2 challenges. But to you, this is an example of why people leave this game: “because it’s too fast, poor devs whose hard work was co-opted by an unrepresentative group.” Well, I don't find anything funny about it

Or ask to use mod assets from Duileoga maybe. Ideally the Iberian civ could be reworked to be purely Iberian in the future (I think there is still potential for a purely Iberian campaign focusing on Indibil ).

Ah yeah this map, I guess it has to mercator-project even harder for proper balancing.

lol wasn't this thread originally just about some map editor thing with a provocative generalized title? now this thread was "hijacked" to match that title. still, maybe these topics could be separated. Fast clicking is not the same as building out fast btw. Even in old turn-based games like Civ1 you're gonna lose if you "idle" (though admittedly you'll be much more aware of "idling") and you learn to optimize your build-out-strategy. So in principle there is no way around learning to build fast enough in this type of game. Also for the AoE series I see a lot about "booming" doing web searches. Maybe there could be different game modes, but these will require different balancing. 1vs1 is already quite different than 4vs4. I like to play against many (allied) AIs on a giant map because I just like the epic-ness of that, the "history" and tales that may unfold in your head here. The game is not very balanced or fine-tuned for that but I can "improvise". Finally you get to meaningfully build walls and all for better protection of your bases while most of your army is campaigning away, that sort of thing. But maybe this is the experience some players are looking for and what the original documents (things should never be set in stone btw anyway) hint at when referring to "historic accuracy" and things like that. Problem of course, it's an open source project, and for general gamers not familiar with that, this sort of "free games" have a reputation of not being very polished, and it's true in the case of 0 A.D., the staff is lacking to cater properly to newcomers, and there isn't authoritative quality control. One of my opened issues was closed (perhaps I should have discussed in the forums first admittedly) even though it is a CLEAR AND OBVIOUS thing for anyone even remotely interested in good game design. But yeah, "typically open source".

@guerringuerrin I do think it takes some nerve to say I've demonstrated so little when for months I've gone through dozens of books to properly source fixes for historical mistakes. For days now I've been updating a PR fixing Ancient Greek language guidelines, with @Vantha's help. What do I have to demonstrate? That I can reach 100 pop in less than 7:30? There are things I'm interested in, and there are things I'm just not, and I've just tried to help with the first. And honestly, I don't think I have anything to demonstrate to you before expressing my opinion anyway. You like to assume I've been reading just since I signed up, when I've done it for months before that, and I've read plenty of posts going back years. You like to assume I'm looking for posts that fit my own view of the game, when they just pop up often (like this over two-months-and-a-half old thread, in which only now I posted! Maybe think about that if you think I'm SO bent to "telling everyone how things should be done"), or are referenced by something new (like the 100 pop thread), so hardly cherry-picking. If you and others just want to ignore them then that's your choice, but it's just not mine and I'm in my absolute right to support them. The statistics mentioned are for AoE2 as reference (no matter if you want to portray that as if I "conducted some kind of data analysis study of the community"), that those speeds are 3x faster than SC2 is a fact (and pointed out by many in the past), and the foundational documents state what I've quoted, and more (I recommend everyone to read them, actually). And I'm sorry if something I've said offended you, some stuff was meant more as humorous than aggressive, but it seems you took some things the wrong way for then to completely disregard what's being said (which, again, is what I just stated in the previous sentence) and basically attack me.