Leaderboard

reduce cost of persian hall to 200 metal/200 stone and 200 buildtime, idk why its so expensive for no reason whatsoever(rn 300 stone 200 metal 300 buildtime)

I'd suggest that this technology doesnt need the 3 traders to be researched. Its such a high requirement that you rarely see the tech researched

<Builder disable=""/> I think adding this to your Man At Arms unit's XML template file would do what you want.

on the internet, saying "i ate a @#&#036;% meal" or somethign shouldnt be banable offense, if it is then there have to be mods who review the bans, and thats tiresome and costly for no reason. better question to as is, what does this muting provide? what value does it bring? and the answer is, absolutely none, its simply a nuisance. i understand banning ppl who spam, threaten others but those never get banned, but i say "o@#&#036;%" instead of count and i cant properly organize games for 2 days.

I already said this. And it doesn't even need to be a 2v1. One player can easily do it by themselves if they get slightly boosted. It’s not hard to imagine a player getting boosted early and getting enough axe cav to destroy CCs at min 5 when there are hardly any men to defend. Putting all cav into p1 is very concerning. It would be like @Dizaka merc cav rushes this alpha except there would be cheaper, not have a phasing requirement, would come 3 minutes earlier when there are fewer defenders, and the result would be a loss of a CC, which would be gg for that player

huge agree right there

@borg- @real_tabasco_sauce , @Sevda brought up a good point about them easily taking out a cc. I would say 40 would be necessary to easily take out the cc. However, there is more to the situation. My main worry about having axe cav in p1 is that it would make 2v1 in p1 a game-ending scenario. Mauryans doing skirmcav and persians doing axecav against another player who does not have any hunt would be totally unfair. In order for a player to help their teammate against this in p1, they need cavalry, because infantry will be late and cav will raid around them and eventually kill cc. if the unit costed more like in @real_tabasco_sauce's mod, then it would at least require eco to mass up, so it would not be possible to quickly spam them out of cc and end the game in less than 5 minutes, with the help of a jav cav civ in 2v1. @borg-There is absolutely no way axecav could go in p1 and be as cheap as they are now (not even considering increased crush that has been proposed). Having an overpowered gimmick in p1 followed by the unit being useless afterward is frankly not good game design.

Great work, i suggest you make it autorebuild. Right after a game ends, it should be updated automatically instead of always having to rebuild replay cache before the ratings can be updated too

Sure @Sevda. First of all, I can't see from your pictures the number of matches you've played with the players in your list, but I can imagine that the number of matches is small for those players that you believe being far from your expectations. When the number of matches is small, statistics are unreliable; you need many games to get significant data values. Notice that the mod (v0.25.6, the last version at the moment I am writing) allows you to filter out players whose number of games is small (from the Options > Player Filters menu). That being said, I'll do my best to explain the algorithm hereby; you can find more info at the repository page and, if you want to look at the part of the code that handles the rating computation, you can look at this file. Sorry for the long answer, I hope it's clear enough.

As for the issue of auto-muting due to profanity in the lobby, I would suggest a light or no punishment at the first occurrence, then gradually increasing severity of punishment. That way, if a person has a typo that produces a swearword then it will be rare enough that they won't even notice the profanity filter. At the same time, there will be players who will abuse this, I'm sure, since it's so easy to create new fake accounts. So, if you want the auto-mute punishment to be decreased then it probably requires increasing the barrier to entry for new accounts. Edit: Looking at Sevda's screenshots, it appears that initial punishment is a simple kick, not a mute or ban of any duration. I think that the repeat offenders are the ones who get the mutes or bans.

Au contraire. Report them and they'll get muted or banned. Trashy spammed the lobby, was reported, got muted. Demitritool threatened one more more other players, was reported, got muted and later duplicate accounts of his got banned. For reference: Report of Trashy doing lobby spam https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/79511-report-of-trashy-doing-lobby-spam/ DemitriTool being profane and personally offensive https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/62643-potentially-offensive-room-name-that-also-impersonates-my-name/ So far, in my experience, reporting users has had 100% rate of effectiveness for punishment, and within a few hours or days. vinme, if you care so much about this issue, please report users who are breaking rules.

File bug reports in the bugs forum or even better yet on trac, thanks.

You need to change the selectiongroupname.

This is not a proper comment. https://www.tutorialspoint.com/xml/xml_comments.htm

public\simulation\data\technologies\unit_advanced.json&unit_elite.json

I am a big fan of the minus key, but someone in the past must have thought that ancient history needs something fancier... Patches are coming up. Who should I put as reviewers? Just Stan or other people, too? Maybe an English native speaker?

There is a Persian hero training immortals or ships training units, this is already somewhat close to what you want. As for granting experience, start by adding a new action "grant exp" like there is for walk attack and so on, check unit_actions.js

Both can be done in a mod, needs some javascript coding but no issue with current engine. There is a hard limit of 8 players in the engine, so you can't just easily add "players" as you like. It's possible to get around this but it's probably a very tall order, many times harder than 1&2 at least.

i have recently started using persia, its not as weak as one would think, but very hard to play properly. id advise perhaps p2 10% food tech. make cc archer range tech cheaper maybe 300/150 over 400/200 food/metal. decrease atack, increas armor of citizen spearmen? so just pikes? with no hack armor? thats a bad idea. make the traintime -10% 300 food for cav tech into 20% less traintime. give better hero, instead of only cav hero, provide 15% move speed one maybe 15% dmg for cav. bow women too extreme, would change game completely, i dont like it. archer rank advance seems boring, given rn archers weak af, unless you mean cav archers as well, then interesting. accuracy boost for archers? maybe civ passive 10% less spread? all persian cav from cc can be interesting, but changes game too much still i feel, maybe all can come from special stable, that has limit of 2?(normal stables avalible also) cav hp to p1? maybe instead, do the "nisean war horse" tech p1, affects all mele cav,as long as you dont give swordcav to persia, this way could work, but make it expensive, 600-800 food perhaps. (20%+hp for mele cav but 10% more traintime)

Did you put the edited file in your mod?

Try by adding damage e.g. { "value": "Attack/Ranged/Damage/Pierce", "add": 100 } Ref: D1950 - Create "Damage"-container for damage types in templates (3/Jun/19)

On June 3rd, 2022, around 11:35 pm UTC, Some players were apparently colluding to boost the rating of certain players. These guys, or one guy with a lot of duplicate accounts, were throwing matches rapidly, about 6 matches in 4 minutes at one point. Here are some of the names that I noticed apparently doing this. borg2 borgy2 borg2. fman4 fman3 fman2 aboss valihrant.. borg. carid2 vali2

I updated the current civs and random maps present in the mod, then I will look closely at bugs that may have gone unnoticed and after that I will start adding more civ, I believe I will start with the Thebans because they are easy to adapt and finish.

this is needed by all civ with car charriots: they have nothing that differentiates them from the archer cav, but nothing should give them greater price, range, precision and that they are slower elephants, all (even archers) should have a small attack in area, that do damage in 360º, even the builder elephant died

This is the link to the graph for anyone who is interested: https://www.desmos.com/calculator/vlu7yvlz8y You can tweak the values of the parameters to see the result for each unit type.

@real_tabasco_sauce mentioned that autotraining in larger batches will start the second batch faster, which is something that I did not take into account. So I am now comparing autotraining in batches of 2 units to autotraining one by one. The mathematical derivation: Plotting the two functions onto a graph in Desmos: Vertical axis: total resources gathered (arbitrary unit) Horizontal axis: time passed (arbitrary unit) Blue line: R(t) for 2 by 2 Red line: R(t) for 1 by 1 Black line: the amount of resources by which blue leads red. Analysis and conclusion: Initially, red is greater than blue: 1 by 1 wins for short time lengths. If you want a quick burst of resources then training 1 by 1 is superior for a short duration. Then blue catches up and exceeds red at a finite time: this is the critical value; if you are planning on batch training continuously for longer than this critical value then 2 by 2 will maximise your economy. The black line suggests that the advantage of 2 by 2 will blow up after a significant amount of time, so if you are booming peacefully from scratch then 2 by 2 is favourable. @berhudar This may be of interest to you. Would you like to develop a build order for 2 by 2 training? Tessekurler

Archery was very common in Persia, it shouldn't be unusual to see women shooting. Your attack ingame should be as low as a dagger. I will take a look to see how this ice house works.

I would consider this attitude on the impolite side of things. If you can't be bothered to give your opinion on a proposal, you might be in the balancing team, but not in an advisor role. At least you can say that you disagree with the fact and for an advisor it wouldn't be bad to express what you think of a certain feature that is currently in the game, which is in this case axe cavalry. I hope you have an opinion worth sharing on axe cav yourself. Rather than the negatives, we should look for the positives. If there are negatives, we should look for ways to address for the negatives or argue that how the positives can outweigh the negatives. Also in all the posts on the tread, I see some positive things mentioned about the patch. So I don't agree with your view about the skepticism the patch received.

I wouldn't be a fan of moving all good stuff from p2 to p1. I would like it if p2 offered useful and unique advantages instead of being the roadblock on your way to p3 that it currently seems to be.

Apparently everyone seems to agree with the changes: - Persian women have a bow to defend themselves rather than the conventional dagger. - Archers are more accurate than other archers and advance in rank faster - Decreases the attack of citizen spearmen considerably, but increases armor pierce. - All Persian cavalry are available in the CC, except champions. I'm going to remove the gardens because it needs a new model and I think that might be a little off topic. About all cavalry being trained in phase 1, i think we can just leave javelin cavalry and ax cavalry. With the changes proposed by @real_tabasco_sauce it can work very well. As for the recruiting technology, apparently it was well received but it can't be turned off. Anyway, I think that with adequate values it can still be very interesting and effective during the game, as long as the player has enough gold accumulated or possible mines to collect, but if denied the gold the game can be lost. I think it adds interesting decision points. I really like @Dakara idea of market training slaves. I'll look for historical basis for this. I like this idea of @berhudar --> Cavalry health upgrade should be researchable in p1. @alre idea about the immortals is something i did in my mod. Only problem is referring to the status of the units. Both archer and spearmen must have the same health, armor, attack etc.. with the exception of the bonus of spearman against cavalry. So finding good numbers for both is a little difficult.

It's up to you guys I'm planning to release a RC soonish, I am waiting for one or two bugs to be fixed first. I'll advertise the RCs on the forums

Well, in english, "shiddy" technically is a swearword so the profanity filter is working in that case. In my vernacular its perfectly ok to say those kind of words in an informal setting, but I am not sure if the fancy brits would agree.

@Stan` Should the name of A26 be already written in its wiki page or not yet? The wiki is completely updated up to r27103, which is (right now) the last commit. I'll try to keep an eye on the new commits each couple of days or so.

All relevant commits included until: r27103 [Disclaimer: since I'm not a developer, my sense of 'relevant' may have included many more commits that are truly necessary... Feel free to simplify the list!]

Hi, I am just recently discovering your mod and having magnificent fun playing around with civilizations - you really did an excellent job in developing such nice gameplay mechanics such as the "glory resource" - I would therefore like to suggest a slight addition to it - what do you say to adding "ritual sacrifice" to the mechanic - for example you sacrifice an animal from the corral or human citizen/captured slave with a priest unit and then you get an instant glory points - like 20-50 depending on the animal and 80-120 depending on if it's slave/citizen/citizen-soldier Reason I think it would help is - first of all I see Zapotecs slaves cost glory - and glory is hard to come by early on when you need an economy boost quickly - seems as they are lagging behind in eco compared to other civilisations even tho making that unit cost glory is excellent in theory I think it needs an early boost - you could add sacrifice the goats like you have burning pigs (that click to upgrade) so you can gather a bit glory in t1 faster - goat is 60 food and it should give 20 glory for balance example, cow could be Also - I think it might be interesting to set an upper limit to glory resource - like if you are in town phase you can have max of for example 600 glory - and each phase has more glory to store - since it would balance overproduction of glory later on in the game - from these few days I played glory stood out the most to me and I really see the potential in this aspect of the game - really is something very innovative and a breath of fresh air I cannot express with words how much I am fascinated with the whole mode - really really great job! I have a few suggestions about hero buffs as well - when I collect all ideas on the one place I will post that as well when I play with civiliastions a bit more - would really like if there were some people that play this mod online but I had no luck finding anybody yet and AI isn't the best to find balanced ideas for hero choices I think

As Music Lead on 0.A.D., I decided to start a thread here to explain to would-be contributors how my desicion making in that area will work. The few basic requirements of quality-assurance must be: - Ability to create tracks of similar production-value to my score in terms of sampling, sound, mix and mastering. - Ability to record live instruments to match my score and avoid the cliche, 100% sample-based score everyone else has. - A certain understanding of the game and the concepts set for each civilization. - Availability to make any requested changes by me / the team. - Ability to deliver product as a high-resolution .wav file. - An understanding of and willingness to work under Creative Commons, share alike license. I will generally not work with anyone who doesn't match these criteria, although in extreme cases I might consider accepting a MIDI file and doing the production myself, on a free-time basis. I will generally not accept pre-existing tracks, unless by some chance they fit remarkably well, or can be tweaked to fit. I understand that many young composers are attracted to this kind of project, but in the interest of delivering a good, even-quality product, I must be very picky with music contributions. Composers who feel they meet the criteria and wish to contribute are welcome to contact me directly via omri (@) omrilahav.com, or post on this thread. Please include a link to your work and a brief description of your experience. Good luck,

Sure, but why?