Leaderboard

Was based on svn before A26, closer to A25 I believe. The binary I deleted in the meantime but could be rebuilt, though might have to work around a certain python - sm issue. From my limited knowledge of Windows memory model, it allows sort of overcommit if backed by hdd, maybe sort of dynamic swap is a better term. For me 0ad typically takes about 7 GB of virtual memory on Linux 64bit and some 1.5 GB residential memory. Therefore I think it's very reasonable to assume that a 32bit builds will have trouble with the limited address space but a 64 bit build would work reasonably well with 4GB physical ram even on Windows. So I have no doubt that 32bit is an issue which people might run into occasionally, was just wondering if the last community mod might have moved the tipping point based on recent noise but according to @chrstgtr that doesn't seem to be the case. I think the last notable rise in requirements was with A24 and earlier version should be much less likely to run into this.

Removed the old poll, you can you try again?

It’s true that the building ai was better balanced before the mod, but it was very underdeveloped and led to a very simple gameplay result. It would be foolish to say that random arrows is the best possible building ai system, so it was definitely worth trying something new. Also I’ve seen high skill players avoid losing units to the cc despite the cc shooting the closest unit. These weak cav or infantry then just go back and gather or heal in their own cc. Interesting micro has arisen for both the rusher and defender. The best part of the building arrow change is that there is now an immediate cost to entering building arrow range instead of it being negligible for big armies. The worst part has been how fast units die especially with overlapping ranges.

The strategy is more effective for 1200-1400 players who can lessen the performance gap between themselves and a higher level player. This works to some extent even if they defending player has prepared for it because then their boom will be much slower compared to players of their same level. To be honest, its not very relevant to discuss this since the "chicken rush" as I call it seems to be just as effective now as before. Games are fun because of the skills and strategies that you learn to win. There's not much to learn about random arrows, because there is no player control over them. The goal of non-random building AI was to add another aspect of the game for the players to play. On a side note heres an interesting game where H.Herle managed to make archers look good: commands.txt metadata.json

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

Update Version 0.1.0 Added BOSSY bot difficulty level - very hard Builds 3 barracks actively researching technologies No extra bonuses Game stats: BOSSY(blue) with PETRA(red) Towers Mechanics changed: can be built closer together garrison limit reduced to 1 construction cost increased default number of projectiles is increased (up to 5 for regular towers and 10 for stone towers). spread increased increased reload time Mechanics of recruitment of units has been changed: for : champions, elephants, mercenaries(cost increased), cavalry, and some ranged units hiring from phase 1, access in the Civ Center map limit match limit For example: Persians can hire Elephants from the start of the game, but there can't be more than 4 of them on the map at the same time. Hiring for the whole game is limited to 20. Added male suppport-unit, slingers, archers and spear throwers. Resource extraction characteristics are high throwing characteristics low Possibility to hire support units in warehouses and farms

These are indeed very different....I am repeating what others have said. I pointing to votes of other people. You not only are saying what other people MIGHT think--you are saying that people will change their mind. I honestly don't see how you can continue to insist on knowing the opinion of others. Ah, then you must be misunderstanding me. I was explaining that 0ad NAIVE players would expect and prefer a system similar to the one I developed over random arrows. You are the one saying "People don't like X, Nobody complained about Y" Ok this is closer to what I was asking for. Before you were just deflecting to how things were previously to describe a problem in a26.6. So I am gathering this from your paragraph: "Non-random building AI is too effective at stopping rushes" Is that what you mean? If so, I agree. Changes must be made to CC arrows and sentry towers so that rushers can still find kills. And lastly, let me address your last sentence here. Maybe people didn't complain about it, but my observations told me there was a problem. Players were able to dive under the CC for extended periods of time with no consequences. The CC should (according to the success of other games) be able to be a somewhat safe space if there is a ton of pressure. I would just argue that it is now too good at countering rushes when it is garrisoned now that it actually gets kills. It seems pretty clear then that the solution is to change the CC arrows and not revert to a26 arrows. With the right balance, rushing should be more dynamic since it brings in arrow micro, dodging, weak unit sniping, and quick dives under the CC. You could compare it to a26 where early rushes basically only involved buildings for uprising rushing cavalry with soldiers, other than that, they basically were just a timer saying "ok in XX seconds you need to leave the cc range." About your second paragraph, I would summarize it as: late game effects are complicated, but in general there is more turtling. Is that accurate? If that's the case, I would also agree and argue that arrow balance could fix it. However, given that there is so much uncertainty, how about I put together an update that addresses all the non-buildingAI stuff which is easier to address, and then we can reassess?

These are indeed very different....I am repeating what others have said. I pointing to votes of other people. You not only are saying what other people MIGHT think--you are saying that people will change their mind. I honestly don't see how you can continue to insist on knowing the opinion of others. It is. If more units die during rush then it is a problem. The current rush game is less dynamic. That is a problem. No matter how you slice it, that will continue to be problem because buildingAI changes are designed to get kills faster. The entire thing is fixing a rush problem that I so rarely heard uttered by anyone (aside from you and your brother). Late game is more complicated to assess because of the melee change. But it has also clearly become more staid with players often unable to kill bases if the game runs longer than the first big push. How much of that is melee change vs buildingAI change, I'm not sure. But I know I have seen several players play in a standoffish manner because they don't want to stand under CCs, which has led to more successful turtles. Players will now often walk away from conquering a CC after they winning a unit battle. Game design should not created stilted gameplay like that.

I don't really care. But others seem to. Regardless, I think buildings were well balanced before the mod change. Yes, non-random arrows. It seems, at best, to be preferred as much as random arrows but more likely disfavored compared to random arrows. Keeping random arrows doesn't require additional balance changes This has been the problem the whole time with this change. It was widely held that rushes were balanced before the change. And, if you have a problem with the hero aura then the hero aura should change. Buildings working against armies without hero indicates that it was properly balanced before. Your proposal just feels ptolemaic. At the end of the day, I want to be able to rush the units around a CC in p1. I don't see how that can ever be possible without losing a bunch of units. I also don't want to lose a considerable portion of my army guarding rams from a couple garrisoned swords in p3 after I have clearly won a battle of units.

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.