Leaderboard

I'd like to add 2 thoughts to basic idea of this post. ( Let's ignore toxic behavior and lack of culture. Which is btw very important, especially in online communication when you can't actually see person's gestures and mimics which can lead to missundertandings.) (1) Vulcan: someone already replied. Performance and lag, especially in TGs is serious problem in 0AD. And devs really deserve to be highly appreciated for their volunter work. Not only on Vulcan... (2) Base idea of this post is to "prioritize tasks". It can be good approach in commercial projects, but in open-source where devs do it for free and for their own soul, that can be wrong sometimes. I think devs should have freedom to enjoy their "work" but off course, leaders must make sure that it doesn't ruin release game. P.S. 0AD is really nice project and huge job is already done and being done. Game is very playable so we should appreciate anyone who does anything to make it progress. Off course, I have many things I'd like to be improved so it becomes more competitive, but I am aware it's not simple.

I'm not sure that works for 32 bits apps. Basically : - Default 32 bit app : max 2GB of RAM - Large adress aware 32 bit app : max 4GB of ram - 64 bit app I couldn't see any swapping info on the MSDN links https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2222901/memory-allocation-limit-for-a-32-bit-app-on-a-64-bit-system I think there was no popup then. elexis fixed a shitton of OOS in A23b

Should have a 6000 garrison limit

A similar buff is needed for x-bow.

https://gitlab.com/0ad/0ad-community-mod-a26/-/merge_requests/36 I did a 0.3 pierce buff here. Of course a well played game can make archers look really good, but I have heard archers being a little weak from a lot of players. I think 0.3 won't take them to OP territory, just a little boost.

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.

@real_tabasco_sauce Forgive me for butting in, but as a third party I do feel @chrstgtr has made their case in this dispute better than you have. Both parties seem to agree that the rush vs turtle balance hinges upon static defense doing a very limited amount of damage. It's basically supposed to act as a timer for how long you can derp around in enemy territory, rather than being a decisive source of attrition against enemies who happen to stray too close to an emplacement. The building AI change has disrupted this balance by concentrating the damage emplacements deal, which was previously spread out, such that now it can cause real, lasting attrition. You want to adjust down the damage stats of static defense to restore the balance, which is fair. Except, won't that in itself defeat the original purpose of the building AI change entirely? Static defense still won't have the ability to generate real, lasting attrition, because that is what the whole thing is balanced around. The net effect on the tactical dynamics of static defense will end up being completely negligible, and all that you will have accomplished is to waste your own time and energy on a largely cosmetic adjustment to the simulation. That's the argument I think @chrstgtr is trying to make, and to me it seems well reasoned. Now, maybe you have some bigger plan in mind for this. Maybe this will enable smaller, multi-tasked raids to be more viable, if now large incursions will be subject to the same concentrated fire that currently dissuades small ones. But you have not made that argument recently. Instead you are leaning on the premise that concentrating static defense damage is an intrinsic good, but the mere fact that you guys are having this discussion pokes a pretty big hole in that idea.

I'm not privy to development stuff but surely 1,000s and 1,000s of bugs have been fixed across the numerous alphas. This thread is silly.

For me personally, performance has always been the biggest issue of the game. So for me, Vulkan falls more under the category 'enhancing playability' than 'adding new features'

Using Vulcan should drastically increase the performance and reduce the lag. The list is there: https://trac.wildfiregames.com/query?status=assigned&status=new&status=reopened&type=defect&milestone=Backlog&group=type&col=id&col=summary&col=owner&col=type&col=priority&col=component&col=time&order=priority People making balancing changes and small features are not the same people than those working on the engine and on the core of the game.