Leaderboard

Well, at some point you have to actually design the game. Not everything can be an option.

It's not. It's actually within the game licenses that anybody can mod the game. You can make a circular reasoning with the tos stating that cheating isn't allowed in ranked games. Actually the Terms of Use are very clear that everything which grants unfair advantages isn't allowed in multiplayer games, no matter if they are rated or not:

The minimum screen resolution we support (although with some limitations) is 1024x768 pixels. With that resolution there is pretty much no empty space left over there. Parts of the panel are also used when spectating a game for selecting the player to spec. Also mind that the game should appeal to new and casual players as well, which might get overwhelmed when there is too much information shown there.

The reason this discussion was created was because players were frustrated that there is no "official" status for the mod, even though it is very clearly against tos. The problem with "letting hosts decide" is that there is no discussion required to clear a player to use the mod. If I wanted to use a handicap for example, I would ask the host first and the host would allow me or disallow me. In the case of progui, users simply enter a host and don't mention a thing since they don't care whether everyone agrees that they use it. This is primarily how progui users get away with it, in ~75% or more cases most of the players in the TG are unaware of the cheats. If I was able to give myself a 1.1x handicap without anyone in the host knowing then surely it would be cheating; since progui provides an unfair advantage it should be treated the same.

Helllo, If a bot performs tasks on your behalf and this feature isn't available in the vanilla version, it's considered cheating. Other players don't have the option to do the same. I don't want to play against cheaters, whether they're weak or strong; it's the same. I'm convinced that someone who focuses on rushing with their cavalry will manage it better because they won't have to click on these buildings and produce, or even think about it. The player without the mod won't have this advantage. If QuickStart were in the vanilla game, configurable and accessible to everyone, I wouldn't like this feature, but I wouldn't oppose it. I also think that issuing commands during pause is a form of cheating for those with autociv. I find it comfortable with all the pauses in the games. The goal isn't to issue 50 orders but just 1 or 2. Should issuing orders during pause be in the vanilla game? I'll let you debate that. People don't ban it ,because they don't know it exist. If tomorrow a super developer creates a bot that plays entirely in your place, performs excellent military maneuvers, automatically sends resources, and starts transitioning farms on its own, would you still find that acceptable?

please give the vote more time

I created a few small maps and I wanted to see what people think. This is my first time trying to make a proper map that is balanced. Also, while making these I noticed that arrows from from towers (and possibly fortresses) can travel through terrain and hit something on the other side of a mountain. hughsmaps.pyromod

crazy that people possessing and using a tool that gives an advantage over others without the tool can't name it as it is ..... parallel universe ? a) what counts as fair: same conditions for all parties what counts as unfair: not a) ! it is so simple.

I think making it so buildings can only be deleted if they are connected to your town could work, but does anyone think this would be frustrating? I think it might be. Imagine you have captured a house only to realize it has no value, and now you have to wait untill it is the enemy's building to start poking it down. We can make destroying buildings more relevant without this change. I'd like to cook something up to address this in the community mod.

0AD allows mods. Mods allow moving units and queueing research/units automatically. So if you don't want people doing that then don't make that moddable. Instead of calling people cheaters I think it would be better to distinguish between mods that display information that's already available, add maps, etc. vs mods that effectively are AI and actually do things for you. Hosts could have an option like "disable AI mods" and if a function call is made in the mod that's not allowed the user is kicked from the game and needs to disable the mod.

If someone were to make some mods isolating some of the features (and people can enable whichever features they'd like to see via mods), that would be super cool. Doing so might also create a basis for some pull requests down the line.

Adding some features that are in autociv to vanilla can only be a good thing.

https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/issues/7599#issuecomment-112460 Design discussion branched from here^ Some of my thoughts on the subject: Things I think will help overall: #7608 looks interesting. I'm thinking there could be another status bar below the capture bar for "Assimilation." There could be a "warm up" time called Assimilation where it takes a certain number of minutes for the usage of that captured building to become available. You've captured it, it's been denied to the enemy, and you've claimed its territory, but now you gotta wait a little while before you can actually use it. And similar to #7608, you can't delete it either unless you've Assimilated it. All of this wouldn't require any input from the player, so it's decently simple. As suggested by @real_tabasco_sauce Adding some toggle or option to choose default behavior for your units: Capture or Attack. If it's an in-game toggle, we could call it a "Policy," or else it can just be an Options menu item. I think in-game toggle is sexier, but Options menu item might be simpler (?). If an in-game toggle, you wouldn't have to swap in and out of the Options menu if you wanted to change the policy mid-game. I think (un-garrisoned) buildings should take longer to capture in general, and buildings easier to destroy with melee weapons. Maybe revisit the base capture points of different building types and the health/HP or armor values of various buildings. Just rebalance capturing vs. attacking. I don't think a fully-garrisoned building should be impossible to capture. We could revisit the GarrisonRegenRate values to prevent this. Higher base capture points, but lower GarrisonRegenRates seem desirable to me. My ideal game is still Attack by default, but if some solutions were implemented to make capturing better and attacking more viable, then I could live with Capture by default, especially if there was a toggle. If we make buildings more vulnerable to non-siege units, then we can compensate with a building health tech tree at the Civic Center: Craftsmen (common) -> Architects (common) -> Monumental Architecture (for "urban" civs). And if we make buildings less vulnerable to capturing (increased base capture points), we can add a couple capture techs to compensate: Military Cult (common; at the Temple) -> Plunderers (for "barbarian" civs; at the Temple), Siege Ladders (common; at the Fortress).

Considering the latest news about the Autociv mod, it seemed like a good time to do this poll. While it's possible that some community member will start maintaining this mod, perhaps this is a good opportunity to think about what features we think could be incorporated into the vanilla game in the future. I want to take this opportunity to eternally thank @nani for the invaluable contribution he has made to the game with all the time dedicated to the development of Autociv. I'm sure that most of the community shares this feeling. Thank you very much, nani. You're the best. If I have omitted any feature that you think is important, please mention it in your answer.

My intention is to be able to get a more or less accurate idea of the players' preferences by giving them the possibility of choosing multiple options instead of holding a vote in which only one option can be chosen, which would force each user to exclude some of their preferences from their vote. As an example: So far, there is a clear preference for the addition of Building Hotkeys over Players' Stats Overlay, with a difference of approximately 18% percentage points (17 votes/22voters = 77% vs 13 votes/22voters = 59%. ). Of course, here we have to take into account the different preferences between single player users and multiplayer users. We could infer that a single player user does not have much interest in seeing the economic information of his allies as a multiplayer player does. Same for hosts features which has even more difference (23% over hotkeys). And this "could confirm" that right now most voters are single player users. Evidently, this seems to be the case. However, taking into account what I expressed in the previous paragraph, we should consider which of these features are more suitable for the two game modes (single/multiplayer). Taking Active Pause as an example, it doesn't seem right that a player can execute commands while the game is paused in a multiplayer game, and in this regard I would put more emphasis on how to modify the pause system in multiplayer in such a way as to mitigate pause abuse, something we know can be quite irritating. Finally, I would like to add that beyond the "democratic spirit" of any vote, it is difficult to take the results as an absolute and definitive truth. Rather, I believe they serve as valuable feedback for those who, with effort and dedication, develop 0 A.D. and make the decisions they consider most appropriate (and feasible) to continue improving this great game, incorporating Autociv features that have contributed a lot. It could also be a nice tribute. =)

Updates for A27: To enlarge training icons: larger-icons.zip Ranged Overlay without OOS: rangedoverlay.zip Previously, the ranged overlay mod caused OOS with community mod, because the stats of units are different. Now, community mod no longer exists so your templates will not be touched by other mods and hence no OOS issue.

"Active pause" should not ever be a feature for multiplayer, I'd like to see that fixed when its merged. Perhaps single player users would want it to try to win super challenging scenarios akin to a 1-sided chess match, so I assume that is the demographic where we get those votes from.

I'm not sure how to read the results...

I've been playing 0AD on and off for many years now, it never really gets old. I only ever play single player though. I've come across an issue that I assume is my own fault somehow but don't know how to correct it. Sometimes when I'm playing I go to train a batch of units and instead of training the usual 5 units the first option is to train 7 or 9 of them, which of course I haven't budgeted for. The only way I've found to correct it is to close the game completely and start again. Is there some hotkey I don't know about that I'm hitting by accident? Version is 25b from the Ubuntu repository, unmodified.

my post wasn't meant to be a reply to your specific post, but to all the others who obviously use autotrainers and stuff and don't call it an advantage. Which is ridiculous cause that's the reason they use it. To gain this specific advantage. Andyes this is not a), as stated above. But surely a graphic enhancement of the ui and some nice shortcuts and seeing allied stats as with the normal autociv when used as intended is not really giving you an advantage in the gameplay.

Do we have to decide for every player? I am not so sure: If it is too much info for small screens, and on larger screen users feel there is too much unused space why don't we introduce a config switch to enable it? (there is also settings for slower graphics adapters/slower CPUs, together with the corresponding tooltip). Default would be off so thte game is by default well playable. Enabling means testing it on your screen. If you like it, then keep it, if not, don't.

You’re missing the entire point. The point is to end the delete=capture first then delete meta. What I am describing is something totally different. It is where you purposely capture to gain a benefit. You’re still missing the point. If I am going to fight in an enemy base then it makes sense to capture a temple to heal my units and fight around that temple. Or to capture a tower. Or to capture a barrack to spam nearby troops. Those should be deleted. Strong disagree. It will either be a tech that you always want, which means it is uninteresting. Or a tech you never want, which also means it is uninteresting. It will also be regressive with better players who are able to consistently push not needing the tech. While worse players who are regularly pushed on will need the tech. So the good players have cheap gameplay while the bad players have more expensive gameplay (on top of already being bad).

The entire point is to blunt the capture->delete meta. Gaining the benefit of that building isn't a reason to capture it? The only reason in your mind to capture a building is to delete it? Do you not see the problem here? There are several techs in the base game that I find uninteresting or of only minor use, but I think building strength and capture strength are useful/interesting, especially if the capture->delete meta is changed.

In my opinion, packing effects into the Phase up techs is super uninteresting. It's not like 0 A.D.'s tech tree is massive.

It would be interesting if attacking buildings was a bit more worthwhile/effective. In any case, the default should be set by an option. I would avoid adding too many techs for this kind of thing. In this case, utilizing phase ups would be good (ie for HP).

I think this is too much info in the middle of the match when we can use that space for something else.

Thank you both so much. Now I know how I've been stuffing it up. Cheers, Andrew.

The easy way to adjust batch size is to hold down shift, then mouse scroll on the unit icon. You will see the number change. This is very outdated. You should upgrade to the latest A27-release or B---- XXVIII build.

Sounds like what you want is a mod detector and a ProGUI free TG. You can try to make a mod detector on your own which shows the list of mods being used by the players. As I said before, ProGUI is easy to detect just from the replay even if they try to hide it. You can use ffm's script to live read the replay file to detect traces of ProGUI. But there are more hidden mods such as my abstractGUI which only changes the art folder. If I embed that into something legit like autociv, you won't be able to see it. Whether abstractGUI counts as a cheat is another story; I saw the thread being limited to only approval by moderators so clearly someone is not happy.

Loading replays shouldn't trigger the bug.

I think the stats panel can be "integrated" into the main game by improving the top panel of session. Even on a 4:3 screen, most of the space here is empty and there are unnecessary content such as the version and build, which can be replaced by useful information from the autociv panel: Resource counts Unit counts of each class: Support, Infantry, Cavalry, Champion. The combat information: Kill count, Losses, KD ratio Phase of development The build and release version should be summoned alongside WFG logos with hotkey ctrl + K

Wait a minute! Where is the one-boob armor in female form? I feel cheated.

We miss you nubs.

Week #2 As Marc and Ginnu had no time, I did the organizing today Game 1 (Mainland) commands.txt Game 2 (Red Sea, Regicide) commands.txt

Ok i forgot to explain With this PR, (https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/pulls/7633) units will only get stuck attacking a building (or capturing) if you have directed them to do this. If you didn't, they will consider units of higher priority. So it means that if you looked away from your army and they start attacking buildings because there are no units nearby, they won't get stuck doing this. Also, it helps with units like bolts to not get stuck attacking a house or something.

Actually we might have the feature already. The problem would be making techs force variants. It's somewhat similar to this https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/pulls/7069 Requires A LOT of actor change though.

Awesome documentary about the Etruscans, check for subtitles and dubbed versions on Arte's website: https://www.arte.tv/fr/videos/101362-000-A/les-etrusques-une-civilisation-mysterieuse-de-mediterranee/

At 2:32 when he tries to recruit a worker he gets a message on the left saying there is no more pop left Other events could trigger such messages.

Typing banani should ban nani.

I support this. Do note however that integrating the code will be non trivial as some things are hacked around the game and we will need to take the time and make them proper. E.g. the corpse thing i tried to port in 5 different ways and none got in.

They are already differentiated by dynasty. Mauryas and Han.

Did you leave the game and continued with a save? Then replays won't work, which I find disappointing.

Actually each player is well able to select the civs that he believes fit to the same timeframe and geographical region, together with the right biome and the correct map, thus creating a more or less historically correct setting. I just don't get the point why we should not have all this variety available to chose from. Some may consider it fun to also play in different regions with different civs. I guess the reference to "Orcs" was to name a non existing civ like "Klingons" or "Vulcans" or the like. Nobody is stopping anyone from introducing this a a mod. There were some interesting non-historical civs available in past versions (just I never played them).

On another topic, if we want to analyze players APM (actions per minute) or APS (actions per second) to detect abnormal cheaty/automatic behavior, it will be necesary that the replay file (commands.txt) not only saves the turn number as it does now, but also the clock time elapsed (for example in miliseconds) on each turn. Due to game pauses and game lag we have absolutely no way to know how long each turn took in real clock time, so any APM analysis on replays will be flawed, no matter how sophisticated the analysis tool is. I would advocate for adding this extra piece of information to every turn on the commands.txt file in the next alpha. If we limit it to miliseconds elapsed since the game started, the number would not be too huge and would not bloat the replays too much. On another thread someone posted a stockfish game where he had a spike of about 20 unique attack commands in one turn. We can only wonder how long that turn took in real clock time, as that information is lost forever. A turn can take more or less clock time depending on different factors, like: cpu lag, network lag, and even pauses (autociv allows to issue commands even when the game is pauses). This is just an example of how if elapsed time per turn was recorded in the replay, discussions about automation could be way more grounded. Another benefit of this, would be that the devs could actually use Replay Pallàs to detect which games have bigger lag spikes and when in the game these spikes happen, in order to use these replays for optimizing 0AD further, instead of relying on abstract tests.

Congratulations for the replay sharing platform. Regarding the @guerringuerrin spike of 80 ungarrison commands in one turn, that's a bug in 0AD, and should be fixed. During the sniping autoclick trend of last year, some players analized spikes in 'command.txt' files like the one mentioned above, looking for click amplification during sniping on some games, and by chance they found this problem existed. The situation is caused when, during lag spikes in games, the user keeps the ungarrison key pressed for several seconds. 0AD seems to record the key press every frame, so the amount of commands start to accumulate super fast, even if you keep the key pressed for only a few seconds. Of course it makes zero sense to record and send so many commands over the network, when just one command per turn is enough. Keeping the ungarrison key pressed for several seconds is useful when you want to teleport a lot of troops, say through a castle: 1. You set the garrison point of the castle the way you want. 2. You order your army to go into the castle 3. You keep the ungarison key pressed for several seconds until all troops teleported. If you make repeated key-presses instead of holding the key down it will likely not produce this spike. As this behavior is useful in normal gameplay, and players will continue to use it, it would be ideal if 0AD would not spam the replay file and the network with such useless identical commands on one turn.

It's more general info about the replay. See https://replay-pallas.wildfiregames.ovh/Replays/ReplayDetails/6F68BB674044541A (Should work for most replays)

What would you do to achieve the current shift-click behavior? just deprecate it? No es bueno, senor.

phyzickate.zip Another update: more colours and fixed the elephant bug. This is the Nubia biome: