Leaderboard

A musical representation of my emotional state while getting rushed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wokx576v5Y0

Review it thorougly in all its aspects, art(actors and meshes), gameplay, historical accuracy etc Civ are notoriously error full

All of this essentially just means "Dont change anything"... ... except maybe add a convenience feature, that lets hosts list what mods they allow. I have no idea how you would add the "automatically honor those policies", as that is literally the same as adding some anti-cheat system, no? If the host declares "no mods" and you somehow force all clients that join to honor this policy, thats an anti-cheat system. Ah, btw, I agree with @WiseKind. I believe that at this point in time, there is no change needed to address "cheating" in any way. Any energy spent on that would be better spent on improving the balance and performance, adding to the content (through maps, scenarios, civs) or just... playing the game.

The basic units are a bit boring: The helmets are not compatible with the Cimbrian wars, those helmets are posterior, and the alesia helmet in bronze never existed: There is a large mix up of shield bosses from centuries much before the Cimbrian war and shield bosses from after. Weird wolf warrior, not sure from which source it came from: Boiorix uses a helmet from the end of the Gallic Wars, so decades later:

well a new market would be nice, but the old one is okayish. @Obskiuras maybe this is something you could do: It would be good to have a better emblem for the civ, and this face engraved on a huge metal pot would be pretty cool. A drawing inspired from it would be ideal, sort of in the style of the other civ emblems. In terms of gameplay, I might need to nerf a hero bonus, but other than that, I think its ready.

darn, @WiseKind got time on his hands and a fire in his heart. If you were to become a programmer for 0ad, you could have such a positive impact on this project (not saying you aren't having a positive impact right now). My good fella @WiseKind, I gotta say, we ain't gettin nowhere. This thread's lookin productive to ya? Must be cause' its yer first. The main problem is precisely that we can not agree on what is cheating and what is not. You are truly correct with what you said about us not having to subscribe to any specific notion of what constitutes cheating. Indeed, we can make up what cheating is to 0ad. But to actually create a definition of "cheating in 0ad", atleast the core team would have to agree on that issue (and since they seem to listen to us lowly players, we all would have to agree). That will not happen, because we all like different aspects of the game and we all have different believes of what this game should become and different backgrounds, under which we interact with the game and its community. The one thing we do agree about (even @WiseKind, the total freedom representative) is that cheating should not become widespread. @WiseKind says only "stuff like revealing the map" (I know thats a sloppy phrase, you know what I mean) is a cheat and the best way to suppress that is by programming a different networking system, (with the goal of making "cheating" simply impossible). Other people say that even extensive GUI changes (without any sort of automation) can be cheating, as it makes the game unfair. Obviously, "cheating" like that cannot be stopped entirely and a suppression needs certain measures, whose use @WiseKind disagrees with (saying the measures would inherently stop the game from being open source). I imagine there are also some people that think GUIs are fine, as long as they do not train any units for you/build any buildings for you or smt similar (Im not talking about proGUI here, btw). The measures against this kind of "cheating" would again differ from the other two. But to actually determine which measures should be taken (if any), we need to precisely formulate the issue (and agree that it is indeed an issue). In so far this thread was a little helpful, as we got a pretty precise look into what @WiseKind believes is cheating and what should be done about that. (For @WiseKind this thread was even more valuable, as he got to hear each of our standpoints.) Now, to move on: How would we decide on what "cheating" is in 0ad? In essence, when somebody talks about cheating, they mean any kind of modification that works against the concept of fair, competitive play, or would anybody disagree with that description? If we agree that the competitive challenge of 0ad should truly only be "in your head", meaning that the only relevant part of the game is in your decisions, and not at all in the execution of those decisions, then any GUI mod can never be cheating (up to the point where you let a script make decisions for you). If we agree that the competitive challenge of 0ad should include not only the decisions, but also their execution ("micro"), (as is the case in every other RTS), then any GUI mod that reduces the amount of inputs you have to give for the same result is cheating.

Perhaps I have not been concise enough for you. Let me make it up to you by writing a short (ok, not really short) summary of everything that has happened in this thread so far: I open the thread with my main idea, which states that modding is not cheating, because the challenge of 0 A.D. is based on strategy, which is not easily replaced by a mod. Even if there is a measureable advantage, that is not the same as cheating. I also bring up the separate problem of revealing the map unfairly, and I think this has a technical solution. The first reply is from @wowgetoffyourcellphone, who says that the idea that mods are cheats is ubiquitous, and there is no reason for 0 A.D. to be the outliar. I said that 0 A.D. is already an outliar by being a free software project, and my original claims are tied primarily to free software idealism. I clarify one of my previous points by saying that this thread is actually about two arguments, one being about mods like ProGUI, the other being about the ability to reveal the map unfairly. Even if you believe that mods should be regulated, you can still agree with me on the point that we can do better to make the network protocol of 0 A.D. more secure. Then, @real_tabasco_sauce comes into play, saying that ProGUI makes it easier to exploit a known gameplay vulnerability where people expliot the garrison mechanics to transport units much faster than walking. I said that this is a flaw in the game design itself, and should be treated as such. @TheCJ brings up several points: The first one is that the GUI is part of the game (I still don't quite understand the logic behind this one, but that's okay). The second point is that even a small increase in input speed (a few seconds, or even milliseconds) provided by these mods is an advantage, therefore cheating. I counter this by saying that the gameplay should be designed with enough depth that it's not about who clicks the fastest by a few milliseconds, but rather who is the smartest at thinking ahead. The third point is that it's not necessary to have "checks" in place, just a general consensus of what is allowed. I say that this will become increasingly insufficient as our community grows. The fourth point is that TheCJ does personally find fast clicking to be enjoyable in gameplay. I say that while some might find this enjoyable, it is generally better, from a UX design perspective, to minimize the amount of input needed to play the game. @Boudica barges in with a highly personal insult implying that I'm just sore about not being able to cheat in video games and used Machine Learning tools to assist in writing my article, and also grossly misquotes some of the things I said. Rightfully ignored by literally everyone. @bb_ makes a comment that while changing the network protocol to be more secure may work in theory, the performance requirements of such a model would be forbiddingly costly. I clarify that the network protocol doesn't have to be implemented in the way that they are describing, in order to gain the security benefits that I described. @Seleucids makes the claim that the vulnerabilities in 0 A.D. game design are not easy to exploit and therefore low-risk, and also claims that the features provided by ProGUI are not merely GUI mods, but do change the behavior of the simulation code. I counter the latter claim by saying that, while I can't make any statements about how ProGUI actually works technically, the mod does not need to modify the simulation code in order to work as advertised. @TheCJ once again tries to claim that the best practices of general UX design should not apply to game design, and @real_tabasco_sauce affirms this notion. I reply by making the statement that the "mechanical challenge" of 0 A.D. is a necessary evil, and needing to click faster does not make the game better. I clarify one of my previous points by saying that there is a distinction between input speed and actual mental concentration capacity. Mods can help with the former by automating certain actions, but the latter cannot be helped by anything short of artificial intelligence, which becomes a totally different discssion (should robots be allowed to play video games?). @TheCJ calls out a supposed self-contradiction in my argument, which was actually a writing mistake that I later corrected. @TheCJ claims that we don't need to argue about the definition of real-time when a dictionary definition exists, and I reply by saying that a dictionary definition is not helpful because dictionaries are meant to provide the general use of a word, while this is a highly specific case. @TheCJ claims that even if concentration and input are two different things, they are both part of the challenge. I insist that the latter is not part of the challenge, and that was my original point for making that distinction. @Atrik makes a comment on the feature set of ProGUI, and claims that it was about UX improvement from the very beginning. @TheCJ affirms that this is precisely what makes it a cheat mod. @Seleucids later steps in by saying that under this metric, any circumstantial difference can be considered cheating. This is consistent with an argument I have also made previously. @Atrik then replies that there are so many GUI mods out there, and there are so many different opinions about what mods are cheating and which aren't, that it's better to stick with my more narrow and concrete definition of cheating, while also affirming that individual hosts should have the right to develop and enforce their own policies. Atrik also claims that it's important to consider intent (correct me if I misunderstood this part, because I likely did) when judging what mods should be allowed. @TheCJ states that these mods should be regarded as cheats, even if some hosts allow it. @Atrik makes a comment that the notion that these mods are "cheats" can have the lasting consequence of turning people away from using these tools, even if they would otherwise find them useful, and this is another good reason to be careful when calling these mods "cheat mods". This point proves effective against @TheCJ. @TheCJ claims that the sheer popularity of AutoCiv disqualifies it from being called a cheat, and uses yet another dictionary definition to support this argument. I covered this already, in my original claim that dictionary definitions aren't helpful in specific cases like this (I don't believe that AutoCiv is, or can be, a cheat; just for a different reason). @guerringuerrin comes in hot, with a variety of claims: The first point is that I misrepresented one key aspect of ProGUI: a feature that is much more sophisticated than I ever gave it credit for. I conceded and even apologized for this, but also claimed that it doesn't affect the actual core of my argument, which is that a GUI cheat mod cannot exist, even with automation. The second point is referencing my original claim that these mods have a small impact on performance, because what it takes to be good at this game is not input speed, but rather strategy. The second point is that the same can be said about revealing the map. I counter this by saying that revealing the map has its own reasons for being considered cheating, not necessarily tied to how it affects gameplay in practice. The third point is referenceing a previous point I made that these mods make you more predictable, therefore weaker, if you over-rely on them. The third point is that a player doesn't have to limit their unique style in order to gain an unfair advantage from these mods. Actually, I don't think I ever replied to this one, but I did say at one point that even when using these mods, a player must still keep track of everything going on in a match, to the same degree as other players, and if they fail to do so, then they are leaving themselves vulnerable, just like another player would, even if that is not as obviously apparent. The fourth point references my previous clarification of the two different kinds of "cheating" that exist". The fourth point is that other communities have come to the consensus that modding is cheating. I, once again, clarify that this doesn't mean we have to, and in fact, it would go against our stated design goals if we restricted the use of these mods. The fifth point mentions the habit of these types of threads for being unproductive and too personal, and affirms that we need tools (the kind of tools that, as I have argued, cannot exist) in order to promote fairness by regulating the use of these mods, and also something about a bug in the vanilla game. @real_tabasco_sauce claims that APM inevitably becomes part of the challenge in any RTS. @Atrik claims that the very opposite is true. I make another example claim by referencing the ability to change the simulation speed of a match in real-time, with the design of this feature implying that it has an effect on the difficulty. I claim that this effect, when used in moderation, only affects the need to concentrate, and think fast; it does not affect the need to type fast. @Atrik claims that I misquoted something from @guerringuerrin. I reply by clarifing the point I was trying to make. @Atrik doubles down by being the first to accuse me of making baseless assumptions. I address this by clarifying that my argument does not have anything to do with ProGUI, and I only ever used it as an example, and I have done my due dilligence to avoid sounding like an expert on ProGUI when I am not. @TheCJ steps in and says that other people should not be expected to thouroughly research ProGUI, given they may not have the time to. @TheCJ counters my original claim that modder transparency is impossible to enforce, based on a specific example of how ProGUI works, which is easy to detect based on the replay. I make the statement that I see this specific example clearly, but other mods may not work the same way, and generally, any attempts to control what software can run on a player's computer will be an uphill battle. @TheCJ forwards some other claims that were already sufficiently mentioned in this list, and mentions that @Seleucids thinks the game is already so fast that click rate begins to matter. I make the claim that this is a flaw in the gameplay and should be treated as such, therefore it is not a valid counterargument. I also think this is not what @Seleucids actually meant. @Atrik express a concern that too many misunderstandings can also repel someone from trying out mods such as ProGUI, if they get confused themselves. @guerringuerrin make the claim that this game is already so fast that APM matters. I counter this by giving a specific example that illustrates my point that I have never (personally) been restricted by APM, whereas I feel constantly restricted by my mental capacity at my current level. @guerringuerrin also becomes the second person to accuse me of making unfair assumptions and bigotry, and I address this promptly. @guerringuerrin also mentioned at this point that the definition of cheating is determined by the majority (can't really argue with that), and correctly repeats back my personal definition of cheating (something that breaks a game mechanic directly). I don't think that last part really needs to be said, but it's just for those who are going to try and say I'm cherry-picking my case here by ignoring the real arguments (I'll get to that soon). @MetaPhyZic complains about the unproductivity of this thread. I, personally, think that this thread has been very productive so far, but there are a few things that I need to address before we can move on, which is part of the reason why I'm writing this list. @guerringuerrin says that I have only been making assumptions so far, and nothing of substance has been said, and also says that I do not have the authority to discuss any of this until I have tried "real" competitive multiplayer. @wowgetoffyourcellphone makes a comment that kind of makes it sound like I'm only using this thread to rationalize my usage of ProGUI, which makes no sense because I don't even use it, and don't plan to use it for anything other than out of curiosity (because it's been brought up so much already), and because I have already stated why I am writing this thread, which is because I believe that this project is promising, but I am worried that too many people are working on a free software game design project despite not understanding the true values of free software, which has me worried about the future of the project. So, there you have it. Not really short at all, but better than nothing. This is a decently-sized thread, after all, and I think it has been productive. Now, @guerringuerrin, I personally dare you to write your own list of every assumption I have made in this thread, followed by the truth that I am missing. Don't just say that I am making baseless assumptions and walk away. I have said this multiple times before: if I am misunderstanding something, I want people to correct me, and not just call out my assumptions without any real opportunity for clarification. This way, we can move past the misunderstandings, and move on productively. Admittedly, even I am starting to get frustrated with the circular arguments and personal attacks, but I believe that my thread doesn't have to end this way. And if a subset of people are not being productive in the debate, the other productive members can just block them out and carry on. I'm going to be away for the computer for a week, so I won't be available to continue to participate in this discussion until about April. We'll just have to see what happens. All I'm saying is that I do think that this thread has been everything I wanted it to be, and I'm not ready to give up yet.

The problem is that now, anybody using it is a cheater, and that, also the mod is disgraced beside being a very good mod, that add legitimate improvements to interface with the game... I think/hope that's not you aim for, but you can see why having a definition that both fit the intent and have a very define description could be worth considering over your wider definition. Also, if a mod is labeled cheat then very very few players would be interested into getting it, despite that they could actually like it. Cheats are often used when you are about to drop a game and you want quick satisfaction, mods get you to explore new ways to play it. I try to only promote moderngui to players who describe a wish for a feature that is specifically in the mod, and if another smaller mod have a similar feature, then I'll promote it instead, but I know for a fact that players who heard for the first time that a mod is a cheat is very unlikely to ever try it (permanent effect) compared to a player who heard about it as a mod will very likely do. I'm kinda over it now if some people want to call it cheat, I'm just replying to you @TheCJ since you seems more in a constructive approach, I don't want to get to personal about this @#$% anymore

I can also allow mods while still knowing that they are cheats in the strict sense. And yes, autociv is a cheat aswell, of course.

@TheCJ, you made the effort the define categories where mods that gives any advantage are cheats. But 90% of players use autociv, that gives a huge advantage, and who even was the first mod to introduce auto-production. Now even feldmap displays additional stats in summary so they all are deemable cheats right? In practice, mods might be good for the ecosystem, it introduce ideas, improvements etc... Even if you refine your definition so that mods you like don't fit in, but those you don't use, do, the intent is probably more important then anything. @WiseKind's definition is just better to make a category real cheat (that DEFEAT a game feature like fog of war), and mods. You can disallow mods that you think give an advantage when you host, without the need to call them cheats, that would be good reciprocal respect of every player.

cc @bb_ @Freagarach @implodedok

Hello my friend, I would like to share with you everything I have managed to do so far. I will describe everything I have added and modified in the game. First I changed the population amount to 600000 and increased the map size to 704. Then I changed the construction time and its life, needing 4 to 5 citizens to have a similar time to the conventional one. I strengthened the walls a lot, now the walls protect the cities well and without siege weapons it is very difficult to penetrate the walls. I created new roads to decorate the city, with 3 models, 1 made of dirt, stone and Roman flooring. For now they are only decorative, but I would like to have an effect of increasing the speed of units when passing through them. I created two new units, creating the male Citizen who can collect more wood, stone and metal than the female. He also has new buildings that only he can build. Icreated the Landscaper who can build trees to decorate the city. The female units can now only build the farm and the corral and they collect more food than the males. Plantations are made inside the farms, with 5 options: wheat, vineyard, date palm, orchard, and banana grove.In the market you can create stalls of various types and an area for selling slaves, and there you can buy slaves. I removed the distance of towers and forts and the construction limit so that the player can create their city in the best possible way. I modified the icons of the items(still missing some). I added new songs to the game. I need to clear up some doubts. How can I remove Footprint and Obstruction so that the player doesn't bump into the roads after they've been created? Every time I remove them, I get an error. Next step, I want to add new resources like money, clothes, technology, among others, and modify the appearance of the buildings with the generated technologies. Thank you once again for all the patience and support you've given me so far.

Kushites, Mauryans, Han Chineses are Europeans now?

Why ? What is there to say: I like to look at something different once in a while. Installation note: No guarantee that it will be compatible to any other mod, but if you want to try it, it's probably best to enable this one last (after) everything else. Current version: 0.27.3 (testing/ A27 / SVN) | 0.26.3 (A26) Where to find it: For A27/ SVN: newest testing version https://api.mod.io/v1/games/5/mods/1965214/files/3658747/download (needs manual installation) For A26: It is available through the in-game mod downloader or manually from: https://mod.io/g/0ad/m/shiny Some features: In case you don't like the new backgrounds: There is now the option to enable or disable it and switch between the new and the old backgrounds. Just go to the options and click on "Disable new background" _________________________________________________________ Credits to: @Langbart who gave me the idea and with whom I discussed much about the initial design/ who generally helped, @wowgetoffyourcellphone @Stan` @Radiotraining for tips on the design and a general thanks to everybody who gave their opinions and suggestions in this thread.