Leaderboard

There are no controversial gui mods, particularly if you define "gui mod" as mods that change appearances and do not affect gameplay. my mouse is 3 USD and works just fine for sniping. I agree sniping is a pretty unfavorable gameplay result, but its being worked on from a unit roles/balance standpoint. I also don't think banning mods is a good idea because people will get carried away, in addition I'm pretty sure its uncharted territory for the 0ad leadership; The last major case of useing scripts for cheating was in a23 and flew under the radar. I think its better for now to find a way to allow total visibility of mods for every player in-game and for hosts to decide what they will/won't allow.

You have perfectly described one of the advantages it provides. Is it good or bad? It's not the point. The point is that if one user uses it and another doesn't, the user who uses it has an advantage over the other. Are we for or against that? That is the underlying discussion. All I'm saying is: in a competitive environment those criteria have to be clear and there have to be ways to enforce those criteria. And that is why every serious multiplayer game defines what modifications are allowed or not in the competitive environment. I rarely use the word cheater to refer to these advantages and disadvantages problems that certain mods have. But there is something that is very clear: your mod uses macros to automate tasks, moving units automatically at the start of the game without the player having to do nothing more than setting some options before the game. It produces units according to available resources and housekeep and does so automatically. Shares resources automatically and even in numbers that the vanilla version does not allow. There is a very big difference between a player who has a macro that makes those calculations and executes the orders instantly and another player who has to use his head and hands to do it. It is not so difficult to understand and accept. When we move from a GUI modification to automating game commands and functions, then we can no longer simply call that a "GUI modification". proGU: It also has some modifications to the GUI to show inactive units and buildings. Or calculate a K/D ratio to see how you're doing in battle (not sure if you implemented this feature in the end) or be able to share resources by clicking on the player in the boonGUI-based resource table. Features that I particularly find very interesting and valuable for the game. I don't consider myself someone who only seeks to ban features. This is a debate in which everyone has their opinion. But if that's your opinion, there's nothing I can do. I agree. There is no point in carrying out an effort like this. I think it's a matter of working on balance and improving AI. I don't think it's necessary to create a mod to auto-snipe neither In my opinion, this type of thing is important to develop in the vanilla game because otherwise the same thing happens again, those who have and those who do not have the mod. And judging by the events of the last year that will only lead to more divisions.

I wouldn't call ProGui a GUI mod. BoonGui is tho. Not sure what the second point is. Perhaps these translate to: 1. Prevent unequal access to gameplay altering mods. (one player has an unfair advantage)(or you can call it cheating because that is what an unfair advantage is). 2. By better/resilient mechanics and better features, do you just mean your mod should be in the game? Anyway, I think @BreakfastBurrito_007 is right, just some transparency on the mods used is needed. Then modding public in multiplayer should be considered a breach of the terms of use.

If its missing changes then it's bad. It needs to be updated. In a perfect world commit(er)s would update it. Basically any relevant changes to either players or modders should be there. (Also anyone following commits can update it)

I'll can do it. I can write it like a blog post, so laymen can easily read it. Just let me know when we're close to feature freeze and I'll start. (Or if you want it done now, I can do it now too...) Someone just need to tell me where I put the text.

We have a whole lot of changes coming in this alpha, so wonder if it would be worthwhile to compile a sort of "patch notes" style document that lists summarizes the important changes.

Now for something different: Tartarus... My imagination starts to roll about maybe having a secret mythologically-based campaign after you complete all of the historical campaigns (Punic Wars, Persian Wars, Alexander's Anabasis, et al.)

^Committed to SVN. thank you @Lopess for the statue and @Stan` for editing the building model.

Also do note that replays are bound to a specific version of 0 A.D. so if your replay was for Alpha XXIII you can only replay it reliably on Alpha XXIII. Else the outcome of the match will be at best really different. At worst the map or the units will no longer exist so you will experience issues.

yeah it's been discussed many times and we are still stuck whith a status quo that is unexpected and easily misunderstood, even by long term players. My opinion is that it would be much more intuitive and a lot more fun if buildings trained the same units regardless of who controls them (so one could train units from other civs if they conquered buildings from other civs).