scythetwirler

You can always report them to a moderator. If he or she does this enough, it'll be pretty clear from different reports and logs. Also, to quote the Wesnoth wiki:

From the logs of the lobby, it looks like you are joining the Alpha 15 lobby, though your screenshot indicates that the rest of the interface looks like Alpha 21. Can you check your default.cfg, local.cfg, and/or user.cfg and look for the line the says room = "arena15" and change that 21? You can find the file by following this wiki page.

There's a registration limit of 1 account per IP per hour on the multiplayer lobby to lessen spam accounts.

First off, I think you do bring up a multitude of great points that have long been problems in your Gameplay Guidelines thread and it's clear you have spent a lot of effort into it. However, in my view, the team isn't just twiddling their fingers waiting for new ideas to implement ; this is a contribution-based project and we do need people to carry them out. On that line of thought, I think (personally) you'd have a much more convincing application if you took the following steps : Create a few patches and submit them to separate tickets on either code.wildfiregames.com or trac.wildfiregames.com. Small patches that a specific issue are best instead of a megapatch (e.g. Decrease movespeed of units, increase population of houses, Move hero production to earlier phases) are much easier to review and merge. Join and be active in our IRC and multiplayer lobby. You can probably find a lot of others willing to help. If you have any technical questions, #0ad-dev on IRC is a great place to ask. It helps if you tone () this down as well, since if you do get accepted, you would indeed get a "WFG Badge" and your actions and tone will reflect on the team as whole.

Ditto, in favor of A. Some leaders are so above-and-beyond than there is really no replacement in subsequent generations (or ever :D)

Go for it!

Can you see if it works now?

If you know of a strategy that does not have its own topic and should be tested, please reply to this thread.

Just for the record, farms were finite prior to Alpha 14 and many players found it a bother to have to replace them (and the indication that the farms had run out was usually that they couldn't train any more units due to lack of food - trust me, that was not a good feeling to have :P).

Player 1 Strategy: Devote your economy early game to town phase relatively quickly and build a Tavern to train Naked Fanatics in small numbers. Attack the enemy base early with Fanatics with or without supporting Citizen Soldiers, raiding vulnerable targets. Player 2 Strategy: Given that Player 1 will employ the Naked Fanatic rush, build your base and train units and attempt to make the decision to train Fanatics a penalty to Player 1's economy (each Fanatic trained could have been a citizen soldier that can gather). Please post your replays here.

Gameplay strategies are always changing. Potential areas of imbalance (usually in terms of a strategy/build, sometimes unique to a civilization) will warrant a topic in this forum. To be an effective gameplay tester, you should: Install SVN and update before testing. See Trac for instructions. Be transparent. Maybe you have some crazy cool technique you want to keep secret, but as a tester interested in improving the game for everyone, you should try to employ and teach the alternate methods to execute a strategy. Be able to learn and try different strategies. Strive to improve yourself. Best testing guidelines will consist of: Playing 1v1s. While team games are fun, they introduce many different variables. The exception to this rule is for testing team strategies (e.g. tributing to allies early). Employ the strategy and have your opponent try to beat you. Multiple matches are necessary here. After every game, analyze the replay and the result. Is this a difference in skill between myself and my opponent? If so, discuss strategies and perhaps invert the game. Have your opponent execute the strategy and have you try to counter it. If the winner is consistently the same person, there isn't any conclusion we can draw from whether the strategy is too effective. Each player should discuss and consider: Were there times were I could have done better? If yes, it is definitely worth another match. After many replays of initial testing, discuss if the strategy would be too hard to counter if it was not known that it would executed prior to the match.

This forum is primarily for discussion for gameplay balance in format of: Topic: Subject to be tested (e.g. Early game Cavalry Skirmisher rush) and description. Replies to Topic: Replays of games (1v1s are best) that involve the subject of testing. Analyze the game (mistakes, well-executed aspects, etc.) and write a summary. Commentary of balance is encouraged, but must have a replay reference. Also, please include the revision of the game that was tested! Proposed balance changes will be written by team members for visibility and comments in this forums as well. When a new balance-changing change occurs, topics of outdated revisions will gain a new post with the changes. Do note that in order to keep this efficient, topics created may be edited/deleted/moved/merged to make the format of this subforum concise and consistent.

It adds unnecessary micro IMO. We already have a micro-intensive alternative to farms in corrals. We should aim to simplify econ tasks for the player and have top level players focus on battles while only using hotkeys for most homeward econ management.

For ease of use, why don't we standardize a format for games uploaded here? e.g. Map: Players: (also describe teams if applicable) Summary: (Anything you feel would give a good sense on what happened or what's extraordinary if applicable)

Thank you for your feedback. I've created a ticket with your suggestion here.

As far as I know, this is intended behavior - outputs must be actively maintained to not fall apart (and not specific to Roman outpost). Whether or not players like this behavior would probably fall under a design discussion.

See http://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/3556 Unfortunately, a dedicated host doesn't really help much with performance since all calculations (such as pathfinding) are done by every player/client and game states are hashed and compared to check for OOS (and/or cheating). It still would be nice to have so that players that are unable to host can still start games.

It seems correct (they way I intended) in the latest file uploaded by niektb. The ally sandwiched between enemies has two outposts owned by each one of his/her allies respectively, so that they can see a small bit before the shared vision tech is researched. Agreed.

@niektb112212 with the last ones sandwiched. I just realized that I made one of the banks too narrow. I've attached a modified version of the banks with your changes. If you've already started working on further changes, I'd be happy to reapply it after you finish them. (Nice snow effect, btw :D) DuelingCliffsv3.zip

For what it's worth, I think "attack damage reduction", "gathering speed/efficiency reduction" is perhaps more precise as penalty may be mistranslated for its other definitions. In any case, debates of exact wording doesn't really belong in a balancing topic.

Correct. Cost efficiency is hard to determine solely by adding together all dps and armour. In the instance of capturing and melee attack, a 20-v-50 melee battle (numbers just as an example) may still be favorable for the 20 champions because the 50 will certainly not all be attacking at the same time (lack of space, especially if micro is not perfect). So the battle could very well be a 20v30 with the 30 side having basically a larger health pool. In any case, time & testing will tell. Champions now have a bigger role (due to higher capture values) that may make them more attractive than citizen soldiers in pre-A16, where it was basically all about citizen soldier spamming. I'm thinking of scaling building armor with phases, so that buildings are weaker in village phase, and phasing gives you armour bonuses so that citizen soldiers can destroy structures somewhat easily in village phase, but not by the time the opponent reaches city phase. Any opinions on this?

See https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/48795, linked in #0ad today in IRC. Says they just resolved it.

#3707 may interest you.

Looks good. As I've said, I'm no artist, so as long as the general gameplay stays more or less the same, you can do whatever magic you want in making it beautiful.