Leaderboard

cd GOAT/ sudo rm -rf *

Hi I am fairly new to the game but wanted to give some feedback in something that makes it a bit hard to get into. I don't know if I'm just getting old and my eyesight is not what it used to be but I find very hard to identify at a glance the units in the battlefield. While having the units be on a pretty correct scale compared to the buildings it makes it pretty hard to distinguish one unit from each other. I can zoom in but then I miss out a lot of peripheral vision. Besides that, units are very hard to tell between each other, they do look realistic but see in the screenshot attached, I have a very hard time distinguishing which ones are spearmen, swordsman skirmishers (and that screenshot is really zoomed in). Maybe emphasizing some aspect of the unit would make them more distinguishable. Ranged units make are specially frustrating because most of the time arrows are virtually invisible, I can't tell if my unit is being hit by a tower or a castle. I was wondering if this was something to be considered subject to change in the future. Or if there are any mods that make units/arrows more easily identifiable (even if it is less historically accurate). Also I have noticed almost by accident that the default camera angle makes the game laggy, I usually press "Ctrl + S" for a slightly more overhead view and performance improves dramatically. I wish there was a way to save the camera settings or set the default angle/zoom (maybe even lock zoom out) Besides of that I am enjoying the game a lot, I hope you guys don't take this as criticism, the game is amazing as it is. The soundtrack is outstanding, definitely has nothing to envy to other famous RTSs. I listen to it while I work Thanks for such a cool game!

See Fixed in A26/RC.

I believe it used to be because the "successors" for example were a large portion of the civs, and to get more visual and cultural diversity, the groups were picked first, then the civ within. Now that we have 14 civs and plenty of differentiation between them (even between groups), an equal chances model was deemed more appropriate.

I had to think of Roulette, where the 0 is random but not equal chance. @alre IIRC it used to be that the culture was "rolled" first (like Hellenic) and then the civ; has that changed? If we have the random stuff out of the way I'd still be interested in opinions regarding the opening post.

those are technical words with precise meanings, and the following are facts: - random does not require even chances - RNG are algorithms that were always used behind random picking civs. I am an expert in the field.

if @G.O.A.T is not sanafur / alocaloc and yet still sanafur / alocaloc added in the smurf listing then why accuse @G.O.A.T as sanafur / alocaloc?. Perhaps if @G.O.A.T is sanafur / alocaloc ( which i dunno ) then he should be on top of the list cause he is fooling everyone.

unknown, isthmus generation. I love these bugged islands all squished together, it makes for amazing gameplay. A central crossing with multiple potential flanking routes. Ships are possible but not as effective as in the open ocean variant: and idk why anyone would want this generation, i guess it looks kinda cool. The islands don't really make for great gameplay. One could reverse engineer the bug and find a way to make the map generate like the first picture every time.

Full love for you, no problem about balance in game

From my point of view: Smurf problem is bc small community and small community is bc lag and bad game's performance. Everyone wants to play with known players and many "pros" seems to be afraid to play with "unknown" bc they don't know what his enemy would do. So the new ones can't play with those 40/50 good players and many times u have to wait 10/20 minutes or more to play. And many times, someone who was waiting so long to play its removed bc some balancing thing. In fact, "Smurf problem" it's just a matter for old players and big problem for a few "Zealots of the Balance". U always can ask to that "smurf" what lvl is and most of the time he'll answer. Ofc we all wants to play balanced games. But i think we are taking this to the extreme. We should think in ways to improve the game's performance, ways to make money, fund rising, buying coffes, idk but there's a group of ppl that works so hard to give us this RTS experience (The Best in the genre) and we should think better ways to help instead of asking those few devs to make some kind of anti smurf algorithm, wtf are we talking about?

I have remade the system to be more reliable, starting with giving every player a customized starting area, which should make the surrounding area more reproductible. I would really recommend this map, the ramps to the different levels are much smaller and cramped, but much more likely to be traversable. The new map-generator is linked down below. And for fixing the map "Carpathian", at line 16 is a variable distHill = 45 increasing the variable makes the valley larger, and also make the ramps more likely to go all the way down and up to the plateaus and valleys. The variable distHill is the amount of fields, every structure (valley/hill) is separated from each other. The variable randHillMax = 12 is an random displacement. Reducing the value reduces the amount of awkward geological features like cut of valley. Reducing it to zero makes the whole topology look like honeycombs.

Yeah, the movements are unnaturally smooth.

Also taking suggestions on how best to define biomes. Would biome definitions similar to how we define our templates be better? How much information should be natively supported. (As in you define them and it works, no script changes needed) Should the biome affect terrain generation? Rainy biomes could have larger rivers. Snowy ones might have frozen walkable lakes. How do you define something like that? It would be better if the target state is known before commiting to something.

Yeah, biomes need extended to make them allow for more stuff like this. It is a WIP tho.

While I also think it's ugly I'm fine with different people enjoying the game in different ways.

adds a minimum of 10 games until the rating count starts, that way some will be "lazy" to start new accounts

Frankly I find this activity pointless. Are you asking for all of the people on this list to be banned? Or is this just to show off your 'extensive knowledge' about our player base? If you are asking for bans, first, your list contains many errors so innocent players get banned and the master smurfs will escape. Secondly there are many ways to bypass the ban. Thirdly you will be the first to be banned because you are impostering others. I have never seen G.O.A.T active in the lobby, so you are lurking around with other accounts, and not just one, in order to gather all these information. Lastly many accounts on your list are no longer active players (they quit 0ad or they got bored of creating accounts). If you want to flex, there are many errors in your list and I have pointed them out to you already. The real masterminds behind those accounts are laughing at you right now because you have fallen for their trolling. Furthermore, you only sniffed out a small fraction of my accounts and you decided to award them to Kate, who isn't a frequent player anymore...

I am still not familiarized with 0ad counter systems (are there counters?) but isn't this inneficient? there are units that might soak up a lot of damage from units that are not their counter, and distinguishing between units types is important in terms of microing the army efficiently. I am mostly playing aoe3 as of late and I might be biased because of it's hard counter system, but for example attacking skirmishers with your light cavalry will get your troops wrecked. while attacking them with heavy cavalry will destroy them but attacking heavy infantry will destroy your heavy cavalry. Both heavy, and light inf can be ranged. I guess that in the case of 0ad you could make a difference between heavy infantry (roman legions with throwable pilum) and light infantry (velite, archer, peltast). Perhaps my impression is wrong for 0ad but distinguishing unit types is usually very important in RTS and it often takes precedence before scale and realism.

1645627798586.webm

In the Argentine communities they are called Roberto. I never knew why. Sometimes it's part of the trolling. ------ (1 and 2 ) I don't understand the need to show the body on the internet. (Men and women). For some reason the new generations think that showing nudity is normal. I find it very bizarre how the internet creates certain behaviors. for a cleavage photo it is already scandalous. I know there is art, but most of the photos I see on the internet are not art. (3 ) it would be a poor security decision.

@LetswaveaBook I am glad that you shared your experiences with the lobby. When I joined in A23, the lobby was very welcoming to me as well, even though I was very cosmic compared to most other players, but they still let me play in their TGs. The problem only took a turn in late A24- early A25 when the family smurfs appeared. Note: I was not one of them. Some family smurfs even offered me their password because they think my trolling skill is superior, but I declined because I didn't like their username choice xD I did social experiments with trinitrophenol, Roshan9 and Reyhan where I tried to play like I did in A23 and climb up the ranks slowly. But no, when I play 1v1s, specs come in and call me cosmic when I make a mistake, then smurf if I do something well. When I join TGs I say very clearly that I might be underrated, they say ok, but in game, as soon as I rush or push they call me smurf. If I come to their support too slowly they ask to ban me for being cosmic. In that lucky case they were right, but what if Roshan and Reyhan were genuine new players? How would they feel? The only reason why some players hate smurfs is because they can no longer cheat by predicting playstyles if they don't know who the dude behind the keyboard is.

Its honestly extremely weird, for me at least, that people care so much about such useless little details. Why is your ego so tied to this game that you cannot seem to digest the fact when a seemingly new player turned out to be better than you thought. Its not a big deal. Just because "DefinetlyNotExperienced (1278)" beat you who is 1900, doesn't take anything away from you. Next time, just consider that they are underrated. We should also ban players who refuse to play rated 1v1 games because their rating points are also not accurate. There were several 1200s who played in the "top lobbies" during alpha 21-22 and I am sure they still do. It seems like the arguments contradict each other. At one point it was said that rating number doesn't matter because you know how strong a player is. Well, new accounts also operate under hidden skill only once. I would assume that much like how no one thought faction2 was actually 1200, people would also notice that "DefinetlyNotExperienced (1278)" is also not 1278. Seems like this is a non-problem being hyped up because certain people are too much offended when losing to a mysterious nickname. Maybe just throw out elo and have average APM + Score Growth Rate or something as your lobby rating if true to skill evaluation is actually needed. This is why ELO is provisional and starts at median for new players. On Lichess for a new account, you will get close to your true rating in 3 or so games. Provisional ratings do not take into account odds to make it fair for established players while also being marked with a question mark to indicate to your opponent that your rating does not actually reflect actual skill level. And they also don't care about new accounts, so there is more than one difference. In fact, I have no clue why the lobby ELO doesn't implement this, because its pretty much necessary because without it, a 1200 can knock off 100 points from a 1900+ as you said. Or maybe it does and the parameters are just bad. Ratings are not supposed to stabilize if players keep upsetting while their rating is provisional. I like how online chess operates, somehow they don't need you to stick to one account for the pool to remain fair for everybody else. But like I said, I suspect its more because people's ego just can't take the loss from a snarky enigma. To be fair, the player base here is actually too small to not get emotionally invested into it. When playing chess, I can just rage after losing to someone 100 points below me for 30 seconds and press find new opponent.

If you are 1900+ and an unrated player suddenly start pursuing you for a 1v1 game then you know it's either a smurf or a fast-learning cosmic. In either case you shouldn't do rated with them.

imo what makes the game unpleasant is rudeness smurf speculation increases paranoia as well -> everyone think each other is smurf and are motivated to create smurf accounts themselves or be rude to suspected smurfs. Also hosts become very unfriendly to new players. today, some people thought that I am berhudar's smurf just because I cav rushed everyone in the opposite team and normally I don't do that. This simple case shows you how much paranoia there is and people need to relax! So what if there is 1 smurf? Just play better than them! Think: when has vali or borg ever complained about smurfs? The correct play is to become a better player yourself instead of wasting effort on harassing and interrogating anyone you don't know.