Forums

How's this going? I'd be happy to help, I'm quite into mythology. I like the name. My (I hope small) criticism is that Leonidas and Alexander are too historical, seem out of place, I'd keep it mythological, after all Greek mythology has five ages: Gold, Silver, Bronze, Heroic and Iron, and it seems to me you'll be concentrating on the Heroic Age. There are plenty of heroes and demi-gods to take from. Also, Pan is a god, he's the only Greek god that, according to tradition (or misunderstanding), died, 2000 years ago. Very different from the monsters that actually died all the time. Atlas is not a friend of men, nor a god, but a titan being punished. In the Odyssey (https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0136%3Abook%3D1%3Acard%3D44) it says “Atlas of baneful mind”, and of course there’s the Labours of Hercules story where (on some versions) when he arrives to the garden of the Hesperides, he finds Atlas holding up the sky, and asks him for help to get the golden apples in exchange of holding the sky for him for a bit, and when Atlas returns with the apples he betrays Hercules and tells him he doesn’t want to hold the sky anymore, but titans apparently are not so bright since Hercules tells him basically “ok, but hold it for me for a bit so I can adjust my cloak, if I’m going to stay here holding the sky after all”, to which Atlas agreed and Hercules just walked away. In any case, clearly a wicked being holding the sky not out of the goodness of his heart. Regarding his classification as a god, well, maybe that’s closer than anything, since titans would be deities, and “Deities, Men and Monsters” doesn’t have the same ring to it, I guess.

commands.txt user cangrejoariel(1182) hosted a game and we played for 37 mins, when he realised he started losing he immediately quit without resigning. My in game name is Slendy (1150). pls ban such people, they dont understand consequences and this takes all the fun out of the game

My experience:  1100-1200 players: I can win against them. Most of them are slow and have a disastrous micro. Some are just fake rated, and most of them quit without resigning. But I know good players at this level. 1300 players: I'm probably able to beat them, with hard fights, they usually play TGs (like me), which make them way better in growing a city and a army. 1400, 1500: never played 1v1 against them, but it's a very variable rating. I saw some 1400 players which are worse than 1300 or 1250 players (the same for 1500 players), probably of a "rating farm" (winning only against 1100-1200). I'll end this part here. I'm not considering rushes because I think they turn any of these ratings into mere decoration. 1600 players: they are strong, and can easily destroy me lol 1700+: the same as 1600  Just a note: I'm between 1200 and 1300 (by the time, I'm 1300 at lobby), and this is just my experience. Rushes can kill me easily. I think this is the best way to understand these rating levels. Final: The problem are, as I said, the "rating farmers" - they host games that are only in their side, using maps that they can play without even watching (blind) - but, anyways, they don't play TGs and they don't pass the 1600 rating.  That's is a truth, as 0 A.D. lobby is not a lichess.org lol

As an alternative, perhaps we could add a capture defense boost (technically a capture attack addition or a multiplier) for specific buildings, like the CC and fort. Also, we could change the default hero contribution to capture point regeneration (currently +1, which is negligible).

Ok, I see why you want exponential decay, it’s not that you want a fixed minimum capture time (hard cut-off), but a diminishing return, to softly adjust capture times for faster cases. That can also be done with no need to split the capture in linear and exponential parts, you just need a formula that modifies your capture rate to have this exponential behavior, but capture behaves linear all the way. Maybe this is what you meant by “not visible”, it’s just that in your original description that wouldn’t have been possible.   This took me a bit because capacitor equations are not that appropriate for this, but what would work is R=r*(1-D/(1+e^((C-r)/S)), where R is your corrected rate, r is the rate as it is right now, D what percentage you want it to decrease for larger rates, C the rate that would indicate what is normal and what is fast, and S how sharp the correction is (more or less, the width around C where it mostly happens, for then to stabilise according to D). Then, for D=0.5, C=300, and S=100 (I’d fix it at C/3), you get these values (with C fixed, D and S can be tweaked to get different things): r=100 -> R=94 r=200 -> R=173 r=300 -> R=225 (the function scales nicely, if C=3000 and S=1000, then r=3000 -> R=2250) r=400 -> R=254 r=500 -> R=280 r=600 -> R=314 (stabilising at 50%, which can also be changed).   I know that some people are scared of (simple) equations, but again, no one does the math, one gets an intuition, and what is good about this is that it does what you want, while keeping what one sees linear.