Leaderboard

The density of substantive content per paragraph is exceptionally low here. It is therefore unsurprising that such threads invariably conclude in the same manner.

New update: Removed redundant options: show KD stats, military stats and update frequency. Instead, we let the user choose between detailed counters and minimal counters. A few players were confused by these new options or forgot to set them Migrated the stats panel configurations into the same page as autociv to use pages more efficiently Enable and disable eyecandy features, e.g. decorational flowers on India map Cleaned up the code format and unessential debugging prints. The options now look like this:

We use words to convey meaning. But we do not define what the words mean. Because we want to be understood. So we have to use the words according to how they will be understood. Even if you clarify that you will use your own definition for a word, it will be confusing if that definition differs too much from what the general population believes the meaning of that phrase is. Thus I use wikipedia for definitions, as it is the place where most people first learn of specific words/concepts. Therefore I maximise the probability that the person I talk with will understand me. So you think 0ad is doing a good job staying true to its vision? @Seleucids already thinks his army evaporates too fast on 1x speed, when fighting against multiple enemies in a mp game. And, to be honest, if it werent for the notorious lag, 0ad would be the fastest paced RTS I know. (I heard SC2 averages on 11-13 min for high level 1v1s, I believe 0ad is on par, if not faster. And AoE2 takes like, 20-120 mins, especially for 4v4 tgs. Even the longest 0ad games dont often exceed 1h ingame time) Therefore, if you reach top level in 0ad, you will meet some APM restrictions.

This mod adds the map "Mainland balanced" (https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4232). Since feldmap v2.0.1 (A27), it is fully featured in terms of resource balancing! All resource types feature a level of variety while ending up balanced. Thanks @badosu for fulfilling the community's interest in balanced maps by providing a nice bunch of balanced maps for A23 and A24 This removes Jungle biome from Mainland Balanced because it is too laggy. Alpine Mountains is also included (https://code.wildfiregames.com/D2830, ) The mod is now available through the in game downloader! (mod.io). Manual download here otherwise (updated a27, current version 2.0.1): feldmap-2.0.1.pyromod feldmap-2.0.1.zip a26 archive: Old (a25 version):

Thanks for raising this. Originally, the KD ratio was shown as raw decimals to an arbitrary number of decimal points. I have now rounded the values to only 2 decimal points to control its length. I have also increased the column width to accommodate for more extreme values, e.g. KD 28.79 (happened once to someone who spammed siege towers) Please update the mod now. I am afraid there are some techs which exist within the civilisation by default, e.g. civ bonuses. But it would be a good idea to remove this default number to avoid confusion. Working on it

No, i'm not saying that. I'm making my point against automations and smarttrain feature. Here you are defining typical characteristics of a real-time strategy game. Are you really explaining how to use control groups? I invite you to play a competitive multiplayer game and see if you still believe that 2 or 3 seconds isn't a long time. Also, in the fast-paced nature of a competitive game (not exactly Medium Petra Bot, not even Very Hard Petra Bot) you may forget to check your barracks for several seconds due to the number of things you have to pay attention to. Additionally, it may be necessary at some point to check which barracks are IDLE and which are overcrowded. This has to be done manually in the vanilla version of the game, and this takes valuable seconds of time. Talking about something you don't know it's not wise at all. Indeed, generally, the definition of what is cheating and what isn't is ultimately determined by the general opinion of the game's community. In this case, for you, there's no such thing as a mod that cheats (unless it breaks a core mechanic), even if you haven't tried it and don't have the slightest idea how it works. Here we return to subjectivity and irrelevant arguments such as "I can still beat you even if you use ProGUI" and this same sentence is enough: "I can still beat you even if you use revealed map". Ok done whit this. Good luck!

I would say the same thing, and probably you would too, if someone made lame assumptions on historical right? One will never try it if he is imprinted into thinking he'll not like it (he'll convince himself he doesn't if ever he tried it anyways), and he'll have the freedom to do so. I also have the freedom to say that speculations are stupid and explain that it's dumb to refer to something you don't have knowledge about. And it is. @TheCJ @WiseKind please don't take my comments for personal attacks. They just explain why it's not working to argue in those threads.

If you were wise, you should know that talking about a subject you haven't investigated might lead to saying bs. Reading what other people in the same case (that didn't investigate) say doesn't count. This thread refer to a specific feature within a specific mod every single comment or almost. Now if you continue to debate with countless references to this feature, chances that you are spreading misinformation are probably absolute, and you won't really know better yourself in the end. Epistemology 101.

The quote you use of @guerringuerrin actually clearly and accurately describe the opposite. That's the main reason these tread have little value, is that people keep referencing a mod speculating on what it does or how, creating almost-myths.

I think I wasn't clear the first time, and I apologize. I think I was wrong to say this: I tried to clarify throughout the rest of the post, but ultimately I created an unnecessary contradiction, which was confusing, and I am sorry. I think it was just sloppy writing that caused my original post to be unclear. I'll edit the post so nobody else gets confused. Let me make myself extra clear as to what I was originally trying to say, as to the definiton of "real-time". Real-time strategy means that there is non-stop action, according to the 0 A.D. vision. This means you must be constantly thinking ahead while reacting quickly, and this does indeed require the ability to concentrate. If you cannot focus for an extended duration of time, this will put you at a disadvantage. What I was trying to say last time, was that this ability to concentrate is not the same thing as being able to do multiple things with one click. You can install a mod that auto-manages the barracks, but still be too tired to actually think about it, and then such a feature becomes useless to you. I believe that a large part of the game's skill curve is the ability to mentally multitask, and focus on multiple things at once. This is something different from being able to click faster. You can click faster, but be unable to concentrate. I would also like to claim that in all of the time that I have been learning to play 0 A.D., I have never once been overwhelmed by needing to click on multiple things at once. My lack of concentration manifests in the form of being unable to click on anything because I don't know what to do. There has never been a point in which my performance was reduced because I could not type fast enough to do everything that I wanted to do. So, you are making the point that these mods actually do make the attempt to make strategic choices on your behalf. This is different from a mod that merely makes it easier to do what you want. Now we are going somewhere. I have already said, in previous posts, that this game has so many diverse choices, and there is not (and should not) be "one right way" to play the game. There are so many strategies to try out, and every single action you take has a strategic meaning, from what proportions of resources to gather at any one time, to where exactly to gather those resources from (you have to think about vulnerable supply lines, and how the enemy could cut you off), and how many storehouses to build, that even if a mod attempts to make a somewhat viable choice on your behalf, there will always be an effective counter-strategy. I would also like to say that it is relatively easy to accomplish simultaneous use of all unit trainers in the vanilla GUI, while not taking your eyes of the front lines even briefly. Just put all of those structures in one control group (I usually do '9'), and then press that number quickly, hit F3, and then if you want 50% spears and 50% slingers, that only takes two clicks. The optimal batch size based on your resource counts isn't that hard either: just scroll up until the box becomes red, and you know the largest batch size that you can train (which isn't always the best strategic choice, by the way). That is a routine part of my muscle memory, and it only takes me a second or two, so someone whose computer does this for them wouldn't have a significant advantage over me, and I'm not even good player by any metric. I know you said to avoid subjective arguments such as this one, because someone else may play differently, but I'm just trying to give a real-world example to put some of the ProGUI tools into perspective. That may be true, but this game has such a depth of strategy, that any tool that automatically determines what units to train, and what resources they should gather, is not going to be able to make the "best" choice in every circumstance, unless that tool has such complex logic that it could be described as artificial intelligence. If a programmer wants to put in that much effort to design such tools "just to enable players to cheat", then let them; we need a better A.I. player than Petra Bot. Obviously, these mods will not actively stop you from playing the game how you want using the existing vanilla tools, but if you allow them to pick your economic strategy for you, they will not always pick the same strategy that you would have chosen if you had done it yourself. And if you choose to take all of your attention span off of the autonomously-managed economy, then you won't be aware of the potential tactical vulnerabilities of your supply lines, in the same way that you would be if you had carefully planned out and built them yourself. That definition from Wikipedia doesn't really help either side. And just because it was on Wikipedia doesn't mean we have to abide by it. Again, I was unclear the first time due to sloppy writing, and I apologize, but what I am really saying is that mental overload, and mechanical overload, are two totally different things. Personally, I have never experienced the latter. You said that someone who can do more things simultaneously will have an advantage. But I said that how many things I can do simultaneously isn't actually the problem, it's my ability to keep track of everything so I can make the next move based on the optimal strategy. If you install a mod that handles one or more of the components of the game, it doesn't make you a better player, or even seem like a better player beyond summary numbers. The mod will choose the simplest solution, which won't always be the best solution. Maybe a super noob who doesn't even know how to play would seem to be greatly aided by the tools that you are all describing, but that's because they don't know how to play. But the people who use these tools aren't super noobs who desperately want to feel good about themselves; they are good players who use these tools to allow them to use the same strategies they always would, but with fewer keystrokes. They will still think about where their resources are coming from, which will always take the same amount of attention, but once they have made their informed choice, they don't have to tediously implement their action. I will go ahead and say that I haven't tried ProGUI, and I don't think that matters. What ProGUI can or can't do is not essential to my argument, and I hope I am making it clear that I believe that there can be no such thing as a GUI mod that I would consider cheating, and cheating only happens when someone actually defeats a core game mechanic, like fog-of-war. However, I might actually try ProGUI sometime and share my thoughts, just for fun. But let me stress that my opinion will be unchanged by it, because I believe that good players are good not because they can click faster, but because they can think fast and see the potential strategic consequences of every decision they make, better than any mod can. Admittedly, I don't know a whole lot about Age of Empires, but I do know that the stated design goal in the 0 A.D. vision is that a good player should be good because they can think strategically, not because they can click faster than everyone else by repeatedly going back to the barracks. I believe that this necessarily means that we should allow these "cheat" mods, because if we have succeeded at our stated design goal, then the secret use of these mods should not matter any more than the secret use of better equipment, or coffee, or other metrics. The point is that we are allowed to be different. Actually, I should be careful. I, myself, said that these mods are comparable to drinking coffee, but what I really want to say is even that isn't really true. Again, I don't feel actually limited by my click rate, only my ability to keep track of everything. These tools do automate some actions, and they can make strategic choices on your behalf, but I wouldn't see that as bypassing the need for me to actually think strategically, since the choices that the computer makes for me won't always be the best choice, unless the mod is so complex that it can be compared to A.I. more than any UX mod. I believe that it is impossible to enforce such a rule without making 0 A.D. at least partially nonfree, something I gather we are not going to do any time soon. Even with our small, tight-knit community where cheaters aren't a real problem (at least according to @TheCJ), it would be a bad decision to claim that these tools should be banned, because we can't enforce that, and as the community grows, any holes in our security should become a problem. I think it would be better to at least consider reworking our networking model to fix the problem with reveal-map cheating, as I described above. Then we can think about whether we want to have a section of our community dedicated to people who actually care about the setup that other players are using. Simulation speed and reaction time One thing that I recently thought about was the fact that, when setting up a game (and even during a singleplayer game), you can change the simulation speed to be a factor of the normal speed. There are different choices, with different names such as "Relaxed (0.5x)", or "Insane (2x)". This implies that there is an additional difficulty curve to playing the game at a faster speed. I agree with this, but as I said, the difficulty curve comes from being able to think fast, not being able to type fast. I don't think I really have to explain this further than I already have above; just know for now that I do agree that real-time implies a challenge that is not shared with turn-based strategy games, and this is generally not essential to my point. Of course, there will be a point in which the game is so fast that an entire army can get defeated in the time it takes for you to reach for your mouse. This is probably why the game doesn't let you go faster than 2x for real-time play. If you were playing at 16x, then the game is so fast that most of the difficulty curve comes from being able to click fast enough, and I don't think that would be a fun or engaging experience at all. Think about if you were competing with someone in a rated 0 A.D. game at 32x game speed. What strategy would you use to get an advantage? Your strategy would probably have more to do with how you use the keyboard than how you actually play the game, at that point. Does that sound like fun to you? Just some food for though.

A GUI mod should not change the way the game works underneath, only the way you graphically interface with it. Yes, but you are forgetting that the spirit of competition drives one player to be better than another and that as a direct result, players with high APM do better than players that cannot keep up. This is inescapable. Automation generally is not the solution because it just decreases the number of actions a player can do, which flattens the learning curve. Instead, the ways in which an action can be better than another action, strategic options, should be increased. This allows one players fewer, smarter actions to have more of an impact. I'm trying to help with this last part

ty, it was empty, setting to 1 fixed it KDr too close to Loss? Tec not 0 @ min 0?

Currently you can do - civ_infantry e.g han_infantry (everyone can train han infantry by capturing this building - {civ}_infantry gets replaced at run time by the owner civ if such a unit exists for them - {native}_infantry like 1) but dynamic useful if you have three embassies templates with different civs for instance.

It was not. At the time I didn't know how it worked and I just wanted to add a cool asset into the map editor.

FYI: Issue #6918 (New setting for world population distributed by teams) has been closed last week by the merge of pull request #7161 (Add a 'team population' gamesetting) into the main branch. Therefore it'll probably be part of Release 28.

This also seems fine but 10% wont make much of a difference. 30% is a better starting point. The units that die too fast are infantry and especially ranged infantry. Cavalry doesn't have this problem and therefore they don't need health increases. Note that each ranged cav has double the health of a ranged inf with more armour. Each melee cav is 60% stronger than its inf counterpart. OP. Auto-upgrade with phases might be fine.

What attracted me in the first place to games of this genre is strategy, macro, teamwork... @Grapjas if you get satisfaction out of making repetitive tasks that's ok. The mechanical skill of clicky stuff for me just gets in the way of game enjoyment, I prefer having time to think when playing rather then just only learning to queue up brain tasks. I don't know exactly what proportion of players would actually prefer game with less clicky UI, but it's surely not 0%. Also once again with remarks on skill and leagues and whatnot, I'm considered the same when balancing a game with me disallowed to use "automation", I let you conclude what you want of that, eventually stooping to make stupid remarks on this being related to """"""""skill"""""""".

@Atrik I want to add to my posts that i really don't want to discredit your work and effort for the ProGUI in general. As far as i have read about it you introduce some interesting and useful features that might also be considerable for an implementation in the vanilla version, e.g. showing idle barracks or buildings (I mean vanilla already shows idle units). A lot of respect for that. All the improvements of a GUI that are not really automating tasks, are not of my concern. I also don't want to throw the autotrainer and startup-script in the same basket with the cheats, that reveal the map or reveal enemy stats and chat. This is also another level, imo. But still automation makes a difference and does change the required attention and concentration and multitasking. This is what many players judge as unfair. If automating the unit production would be part of vanilla, and hence used by all players there would be even conditions as well. I could also live with that - because it would also reestablish fair competition. I expect of a multiplayer game, that skill decides. You can compare your performance with others, learn from replays, improve your eco-management and hopefully improve your gameplay and lvl. So that rating at the end means a thing. What could i learn from replays of a player using automation or how could i compare my skill level with yours if i wanna stick with the vanilla? Surely, atm this is my problem and i can avoid it if i don't play with people who use the autotrainer (still this is not visible to me before a game)... but basically i would prefer if there would exist a common understanding and gaming culture. I know i am only talking about a feeling here, which might be considered naive. But, just given the fact that there is a rating system (even if it is definetly not perfect), leads me to the assumption that the developers intended to provide it to make a fair comparison of skill levels possible. If we had dedicated servers, the providers could define their own rules of gameplay for their server and ban certain tools. But we don't have that, nor do we obviously have means of simple detection for cheats in general. So imo it would be favourable that for now it is visible for everyone what WFG considers as unfair and/or cheating, which includes answering the question if they tolerate autotrainers and startupscripts or not. I just miss the orientation here and it is obvious that others have the same issue, because the point 8. of the TOS is obviously too vague to give a clear guidance. It could be added, that "when not explicitly mutually agreed on..." But i guess, after this endless discussion, which turns out to change nothing that i have to call my games tg(vanilla), as @TheCJ recommended and trust that people switch the autotrainer and the startup script off when we play together.

I've just discovered that you add ignored user on forum, that's great. I can add @BreakfastBurrito_007 so I don't feel the need to explain/debunk every bs claim he repeat in circles, after I already debunked them multiple times.

I don't think I am being dishonest... Some of the issues you list, I just don't have them, even when turning off auto-train, because of the passive features of the mod. I often forget that others compare with vanilla UI, but it's true that I made the simplification of comparing with me playing with ModernGUI. The best example is that I never have stacked production in a barrack with none in others because I'll use idle barrack button. As well it notify me of the idle buildings so I'm less likely to forget too. But even then what I say would still hold true, once you have training units as a automatism, which isn't that hard to get if you brain has still a bit of plasticity, exact batch sizes aren't very important on any scale, bigger batch aren't even always optimal because you are freezing more resources for long time, with a more distant return on investment. To avoid situations where overwhelm prevents you from training units, you need to turn on auto-queue. Now, ModernGUI isn't just my work, it's bundling a lot of code and features that were brought by community members for years. Yet, I'm very happy with what I brought to it, a tones of details, options, improvements suggested by players, and it makes it the mod it is. So of course, I can't deny that there would always be something a bit personal when I'll defend this mod, and I have an attachment to it because it also because it sincerely improve the game experience.

From my POV this is the great advantage of the Smart train. @Atrik Do you remember the game we played the other day where Hakunamata constantly attacked my base with cavs? I had my barracks for a long time without producing xD. And even if I had remembered to produce in them, the vanilla production system is quite inefficient and instead of assigning units to free barracks it stacks units in the same barracks in a somewhat random way. I believe that improving the production system should be a priority in the next version of the game, similar to how it’s done in AOE 2. This way, the advantage of a macro that automatically assigns the batch size according to the available resources and instantly would be mitigated greatly. The advantage of being able to freely maneuver your units instead of having to keep watching where the heck the barracks full of stacked units are is really quite obvious. I have used the smart train several times and my production has improved a lot specially in situations like I mentioned before. Unfortunately, you are also a bit dishonest in this regard. I have rarely heard you mention it as an argument, and instead you argue about your great skill as a player and how you can overcome this difficulty. Something that, while true, somewhat avoids the point in question that, at least I and other players have pointed out to you. I don’t believe the solution is to enter a game as a spectator and start berating yourself. However, I understand the feeling of frustration. Taking extreme positions on either side hasn’t proven to be effective. And it would be nice to reach some common ground. Something that also seems unlikely.

I played a lot of games where @BreakfastBurrito_007 was spec and had it off. That's also why he is obviously blatantly lying to fit his narration. My game-play is exactly the same, early 2 cav scouts, often followed by cav or inf rush, high female count in late game etc, often successfully. He will just recall the fails I have even it's a minority of games and that I fail big time all the time with autotrainer at a similar rate ~35%. Basically I know that I need only very short adaptation time to get my brain to make the very interesting part of training units manually then the difference with or without is imperceptible. The limiting factor of economic development is resource balancing and build order. Units can be autoqueued (vanilla) and the efficiency of batching doesn't matter that much (There was even some posts that argued that smaller batch are more efficient, theses posts are simplifying calculation too much but that's another topic). So in any cases, the important parts of what make you successful in a game will be tactics/micro (and build order) and strategy. The small tasks of having to scroll to optimal batch size and re-click production buildings every once in a while are just unimportant frustrations of a limiting UI. It's just my opinion ofc and I respect others as long as you're not dishonest like @BreakfastBurrito_007.

As long as it doesn't affect balance and game mechanics, it's fine. Atrik always uses ProGUI so his level is consistent and we can balance him accordingly. We don't know his level if we take ProGUI away from him, but we can easily balance him as of now. Similarly, if you take my cube trees away from me, you will see a 1350 player struggling to put down storehouses.

As someone who uses ProGUI Trainer from time to time, but not in 1v1s and also not when im asked to, i can definitely tell it gives me an advantage, it makes me a better player. It makes my boom 30s faster on average, but really helps me in micro-intensive situations where normally i would just forget to queue units. My number 1 issue about playing 0ad is the sole impact of the "boom" on the gameplay. If you are a 20% faster boomer, probably every strategy you choose will work (at somehow equal microing skills). For me an RTS should have less focus on queueing the right amount of troops but managing your economy and strategic warfare. Then again i am unsure about my own use of ProGUI, sometimes it feels like I'm not really playing the game, and i agree with @BreakfastBurrito_007: "They're not playing the same game"... I got used to using it so much that when i play without the trainer i always forget to click troops, so I feel almost forced to use it to fulfil my own expectations. Yesterday i decided to not use it anymore (cuz i got beaten by @chrstgtr). Yet i consider the GUI (now called ModernGUI) to be the best one available right now, with helpers like idle barrack display.

This is actually a brilliant observation! Now I'm a bit sad I didn't realize this and applied that distinction I still think many (if not most) players just want a balanced game and don't care too much about the fairness. Thanks for the offer, though I must politely decline. I'll try to take a look at it when I have more time.

Well, I never played with proGUI, so I am by no means an expert. Your words directly contradict Atriks description of what the mod does, and I believe neither of you has an objective view on this topic. But your example is only valid if the rushed player is significantly worse at the game then the proGUI user (when hes using proGUI), thus the fault lies with the host, who didn't do a good job with the balance.

Like Atrik, who overestimates how many players know that he's using proGUI, I believe you overestimate how many players have a problem with it. Most 0ad players I know aren't that competitive, we just want to have some fun and play some games. And even if Atrik would be a little "overrated" since he's using proGUI, when the host knows how well he plays (with it), the game will still be balanced. If someone always uses proGUI, his skill will be estimated accordingly, so it will not affect balance. That's not an opinion, that's a fact. Only when somebody suddenly starts using proGUI, he will be underestimated (as he "suddenly got stronger"), until the other players learn how good he plays with the mod. Thus, I believe most players really do not care that much, even if you might disagree.

Well, yes. But I think it's enough if the host clarifies his preference (I will just start to call my games "teamgame, proGUI users welcome") and if you don't wan't to play with someone that uses proGUI, you don't join those games? Then the agreement would be implicit by joining such games? But of course, that won't solve the problem entirely.

Ah, sorry Atrik, I was purposefully exaggerating, trying to make a point. proGUI is way too weak to be used in a proper "hack vs hack". I consider proGUI a "non-harmful-cheat", much like autocivs building hotkeys or that panel with your teams resources on display (I think its also from autociv?).

It's a very small community and everybody knows everybody. At least in the games i play, players selectively seek other competitive players, and that's a even smaller circle. Not everything is perfected in the trainer panel I made (and that is a small part of ModernGUI tbh.....) but It's so much better/fun to have a centralized production panel that's it's very likely that some future RTS would have a system alike. In other words, the trainer panel is a UX improvements idea, and I think it's successfully superior as to have individual panel for each production building. Again, not saying it's 100% mature but it's kinda sad that a lot of people made their opinion on it based solely on impressions and on what @BreakfastBurrito_007 will make sure you hear about at first.

Please be civil guys. Also, never attribute to malice what can be explained with ignorance. On that note; as much as I enjoy playing with you @Atrik, I think you are mistaken in this case. I could be wrong, but judging from my experience and the messages in this and other threads, there are certainly players that do not know about who uses ProGUI and who doesnt. I myself played atleast 10-20 teamgames with you before I ever went to the forums and got to know about proGUI. Now granted, since then I know you use it and I still love playing with you, but there was a time I didnt know. And others (especially newer players) will be the same. Now, I got a question to the "other side" ( @BreakfastBurrito_007, @strat0spheric, @Dunedan): Would I not be "allowed" (technically), to host a "hack vs hack" game, where everybody is encouraged to use as many cheats as possible? Even if it is absolutely clear that it's a "hack vs hack"? I mean, its definitely not "intended gameplay" and it would also not be "same conditions for everyone" since they would use different cheats. But I am certain there are people who would have fun playing this. Its like playing a very "silly" mod of the game. AoE2 also has "AI tournaments", where scripters pit their Bots against one another. Thing is, I believe everyone in this thread agrees that visibility is key. Atrik said himself he would like everyone to know that hes using proGUI (or atleast he said he think they already do). And it would also be better for the host. But until there is a implementation of that in the game, I would like to ask; 1. The host of a game to specify allowed mods in the title ("tg progui welcome" or "tg vanilla") 2. The users of "questionable" mods to declare which mods they are using before the start (if the title of the tg does not specifically allow said mods) Both does not take much time and might alleviate the issue at hand. Edit: Then we could also more undoubtedly take disciplinary action against people that are noticed to use such mods without declaring them, as it becomes clear it was done in a deceiving manner.

@strat0spheric you are the one creating smurfS to hide, and bs again attributing to mod user "hide" the mod because it fit very well with the narrative that it's shadowy. Hosts are aware when someone join and use the mod. @BreakfastBurrito_007 is mad because his drama has often little effect, and he wish more people would make as much drama as he does. Some host like @chrstgtr and @roscany enforce rule "no auto-trainer". This topic has a tone of attention, you can check the views of this one, it's through the roof even if it's uninteresting and have been discussed 10+ times before. Basically every thing you say is a lie. Possibly, you think that you are in the right, just like @BreakfastBurrito_007 for "the game's integrity and dignity" but you are clearly flat out lying and hiding.

Bullshit asymmetry principle (Brandolini's Law) is again what @BreakfastBurrito_007 and alike use when the argument goes on. So I'll make this last reply and then let them post whatever. @seeh made a feature in autocivP to display mod usage. You have also statements on this very thread that I'm all for features that would display mod usage. 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. But you can absolutely use mods in ranked, compatible or not (you can make a ranked game with ponies ascendant mod afaik). As long as all parties are in the know there aren't any problems. That would be true for any game modification. You don't do it for autociv. Some very old players like Dundean consider it as cheat. So why don't you? You shadowy cheater! (It was even the first mod to introduce auto production lol ) lol. I'm done with this thread.

Let's not waste any more time on ProGUI arguments and just leave it to the hosts. Detection of ProGUI automation is quite trivial; even if the user hides it in some intricate mod Matryoshka (or by some other technical spoofing methods), the gameplay will instantly reveal it. We should instead focus on other potential cheat mods and detection of cheat usage, such as revealing info, stats change etc. Also cheat mods are no longer fashionable because they patched up a lot of the javascript vulnerabilities from an engine level. Old cheats no longer work.

Almost all hosts, I play with, I'm 100% certain they know it exist and that i use. Absolutely nothing is made in attempt to hide it's existence, even the contrary. So that point is totally made up. As for the game-play impacts, sure it have a impact. It's negligible on the scale of a game as there is much more important stuff, especially in complex games like 4v4, so the priority, as i see it, would actually be user experience, and prize players decision making over them being good clicky clickers. I have this thoughts because you mention the autociv active pause that is the perfect example of wanting to @#$% on great UX improvement feature for some imaginary competitive standards rules. It's a free game, goal is fun, nobody have stake on game outcomes. There will never be 0AD Esports in the foreseeable future. But if you feel you cannot bear that someone is using any feature, then you should host with rules that prevent its use, or any other rule you want. Basically same conclusion then the billions debates before this one. And it's a great way to have a middle ground for disagreeing people.

I see nothing other than mentions of ProGUI and Quickstart. The other cheats discussed in November have been patched up. I wont argue whether proGUI is cheat or not. If you feel that ProGUI and Quickstart are cheats, you can use it yourself. As far as I know, no host bans ProGUI nor Quickstart. You are always welcome to use them in my host.

Please visualize combining Proposals 2 and 3 with reactive checking of replays for mods that offer an advantage. Whether we trust the report of mods in use by a user during gamesetup depends on whether the user is trustworthy. That can be determined over time. "Trust, but verify," is a good motto in my opinion.

commands.txt @BreakfastBurrito_007 In this replay, I make continuous cavalry production p1 to p3, and continuously exert pressure using autoqueue rather then autotrain. As you can see, my eco is only slightly impacted, while a player rated 2000 is dominated and can't grow. This one is quite good, but I have plenty of others replay like this where this very technique of mine is used successfully without autotrain. As you can imagine, the difference between resizable batch production and fixed production isn't going to affect one's gameplay, nor define his chances of succeeding in a game. The 'advantage' isn't noticeable by any means other then watching how buildings handle production and conclude that it is theoretically more optimized.

I just don't understand why some would care so much for something that can only be noticed by watching production building behavior. I don't care and rather embrace inflicting myself penalties (like sending some starting resources, having the newest teammates...), obviously I don't use these features for the 'advantages' but because they make the game more interesting. This makes that debate asymmetrical since one side will argue about the (unnoticeable) advantages while some just wish to play the game without shallow clicky 'mechanics'. If a feature can automate some unrewarding actions or empower user controls, I will be interested in having them. One is free to use or not, ban in own host... These debates just get slippery when a group of people will start to spread lies, call for global ban, or insist on the topic being some kind of moral matter. Well, we already debated all of this, but now the thing is: some aren't happy with the fact all hosts don't enforce this ban. It's absolutely not a awareness problem. Nothing is done from most users to hide they use this mod's feature, I and others are often rather forthcoming, wish others would actually use it too, to make games more interesting. + you have a dedicated personnel to announce players using this mod and making them laudatory introductions : @BreakfastBurrito_007.

Imagine caring about Quickstart and making some drama about it. Still remember that game where i sent you 200 resources at start and then I crushed you. You r brain just got on the path to seek excuses for our level difference. No 7 resources gain from Quickstart is going to make any differences. I disable Quickstart in chrstgr host when i think about it. If you can't stand the 'unfair advantage' just fcking download the mod at once, it's not even form me so you can feel good about this; If you have so much fun setting the rally points fast fast at game start, then good for you, why would you jealous me then?

I don't understand what exactly you are talking about, you have rules in your hosts that I follow. And I've never insulted @chrstgtr in game/lobby for banning me from his room as @hyperion is assuming. I remember. I just asked for explanations on the reason of the ban. The only times I maybe did insult @chrstgtr it was on the forum after he was twisting my words to unreasonable extent.

I consider it perfectly fine you banning this user when you host, no reason required, being insulted for it, I consider bad behavior that should be sanctioned where reasonably possible. But going on a witch hunt or donning the justice knight kit to harass progui users isn't any better in this regard and I have seen statements of this happening too. I have no recipe handy for making the lobby a less toxic place. Nothing will change with suggested anti cheat measures like only signed mods or make all mods visible. Still only a download and install is required to get around it. You can't ever make it any harder than that for those willing to cheat. Commercial game studios started to install malware (hooking into kernel and taking ownership of your pc) to try to fight this problem, don't think this is a route to pursue for 0ad. What has potential is analysis of replay data and screen recordings, as that is much much harder to get around. The usage of progui, should it be written down, should be a bannable offense in ladder games, not using it in SP for instance or in games that a user hosts. I'm not concerned it might happen, it will happen. If just saying this is bad, don't do it would work, there wouldn't be a need for prisons, there wouldn't be drug addicts and MP lobby would be a nice place where everyone gets along with each other. It's not the late 1960 where everyone believes in fluffiness. PS: Just to be clear, some suggestions have merit on their own and would make for nice additions, just not as anti cheat measures. And making the game much less attractive for those that do not cheat, just in vein hope to fix cheating that way should be avoided.

This seems like a lot of assumptions to me. It could also be that there is not widespread agreement because it's not that big of an advantage. It's also possible that users want to see less micromanagement of economy and more tactical combat. If players were using mods that made resources out of thin air, invulnerable units, and clairvoyance, then there would be widespread agreement that those mods are cheats, despite language barriers. There is no means of negotiating during gamesetup if we don't know up front who's using ProGUI and who isn't. That's why ensuring that ProGUI use is only overt should be the primary goal.

Your choices resemble someone who wants a "really strong" cabinet installation. The person overtorques every screw and ends up breaking all of the screws or else the surfaces they're installed in. The end result is something very weak. If you force everyone to take an extreme side then you end up with a substantial number of people taking the wrong extreme side -- that of hiding ProGUI use. Instead, one could say, "I will design and build it according to physics principles." And then one uses screws the way they were designed, which causes the cabinet installation to be very strong in the end. If you acknowledge that there are limits to the effectiveness of technical means of enforcing rules about cheating and that there are varying opinions about whether ProGUI is cheating then the solution can be designed to accommodate the physics of the technical enforcement and the psychology of those varying opinions. Then few or no people will hide ProGUI use. That's the most important goal, right? Eradication of ProGUI is a secondary goal of yours, right? ... right? This is another question on which people have varying opinions. Is it balanced for the team but unfair for the players to have 1200 rated players in the same team game as 1800 rated players?

@fatherbushido any news from Fork A.D.? Or has development been brought to a halt?