JC (naval supremacist)

Pop growth : - 5 pop house / 75 wood (less stairs effect in pop growing) - 20% building time - pop room gain by building some other structures than houses - no metal based human units (metal takes longer to gather than wood) - no stone buildings (except towers and castle) (stone takes longer to gather than wood) --> easy to spam barracks (with their + pop room) - rotative farm too boost food production (and thus, possible to lower the number of food workers ) When you know that pop growth is an exponential phenomena, those cumulated advantages gives to celts an insane advantage. and for units : - Cav Hero for best dancing (Vecingetorix is the best hero of the game) - Sword cav for best siege destroying and quick raids - Slingers, best basic unit since .. very very long time. With basic micro and some healers, slingers can get all <<< and quickly the player dont need even need siege as those massed slingers can destroy absolutely everything or can easily retreat in formation with few dumping. - Brits have a dog which can reduce ennemy pop in early game and already give a substainable advantage. I hope that in next version of 0ad i will see team games with 1 or 2 gauls/brits .. and not 6-7 as we often do now.

I like the Pavlovian reaction of those 3 .. auto-congratulates each other with smileys even if they don't really get the point. Lazy minds and poor personalities ; facebook generation. Boudica, sorry to say that but it's better u just keep "liking" the post of 2 others to avoid wasting your time and mine.. i said i really don't care if this is better or not as the idea in the first place was a joke : making score based on 1 player... (even the name eae is a joke) But i feel i have to answer simply to avoid people to get me wrong. nope .. that makes only 2 cases my friend .. not an infinite number of cases. ( exemples : 10-0 and 0-10 or 7-0 and 0-7 or .. etc) And those 2 cases can be labelled as +Inf and -Inf .. just like there are with the kd ratio. Am I wrong or unclear ? - it's symmetrical and centred on 0.. .. i give you a simple example : ln(0/10) = -Inf , ln(3/7) = -0,8473 , ln(5/5) = 0 , ln(7/3) = 0,8473 ; ln(10/0) = +Inf .. I hope its clear now. - I was just saying in first place that taking ffm as the benchmark could be a better idea to avoid having like 99% similar score whatever the formula taken; then i precise that taking the "ln" scale softens the distribution of values (to avoid the massing effect). But im agree with you to say that it will be hard to interpret. @PhyZic the fnny fact is : I teach math and i create a video game ; while you mostly spec games of others and write crap on this forum. I have probably more respect for a "Retard" than something like you @ the forum admins : the least, it's not to delete the answer of someone being insulted. Personally, I won't answer on this topic anymore as it's going nowhere

except on the head, i dont see how a stone can really kill you (and an helmet can protect well vs stone) And, I prefer to receive a stone on the shoulder than an arrow in the eye or in the belly button :D . The stone was quite light, while the arrow and even more the javelin were more heavy and had more pierce effect. Seriously, making slingers more harmful than archers is a strange decision. The slingers were the most light, cheap and less honorable unit. They had basicaly no protection and were very mobile. I really think the balance should be skirm sling archer speed 2 1 3 range 3 2 1 attack 1 3 2

actually, slingers are perfectly mid-way between archers and skirmishers on : range, speed, and attack. That's theory. But in practice, while slingers can use their bigger range to escape quick enough inter-bumping skirmishers ; archers move just too slow to move away in time (at least on long distance) . Its seems that slingers occupy a really tiny piece of land and bump in each other very few. In my opinion, slingers should be the fastest unit moving but providing less damage than archers (which is reality quite obvious). So rather than making slingers simply a mix between archers and skirmishers ; rather make archers the best ranged ; the slingers the fastest and the skirmishers the most harmful. To summarize > Now its : (1 is the best , 2 middle, 3 the worst) skirm sling archer speed 1 2 3 range 3 2 1 attack 1 2 3 > it should be skirm sling archer speed 2 1 3 range 3 2 1 attack 1 3 2

well, i wrote " most " to say i want to avoid the extreme case in which 1 of the player has 0 wins (thus avoid 0 and DIV/0) . I should have been more clear. Yes; its better formula as its centred on 0 and has symmetrical shape. But seriously, idc if its better or not.

1 indeed, statistically speaking, that score would be poorly distributed (massed around 0 and some few values above). 2 what would happen if a player wins more than half of his games vs borg ? Feldfeld, Val, Aristol .. ? 1 game is enough is to be 100% He would be the new benchmark ? 3 this score is calibrated vs 1 player and not all of them. So the gaming style matters and borg can decide to improve your score or even refuse to play vs you To stick to your idea, better take a well rounded player like ffm as benchmark and make this ln (Number Wins / Number Fails) So it will gravitate around 0 for those with same level than ffm ; positive for those who won most games ; negative for those who lost most and no DIV/0 or infinite problems. The score distribution will look better

A well-known noob can enter into the balance of the teams. Bun an unknown newbie , might be a noob but also unreliable (leave game, play simcity, .. etc) during the game and make it gg after 10 mins of gaming only. Coz on high level of gaming, 1army suicide or 1 minute delay in helping can be fatal for the whole team. So the advice i can give you is to help allies and never resign/quit too quickly . Play lot of games to be well-known by others whatever your level is. It takes some time.

. Yes, i play Sparta just because they look cool. But if i want to increase my probability of winning in a 1v1 , i play Celts. Why ? Because with Sparta, unless i success basic rush (which is counter by some slingers) i barely reach P3 while the brits/gauls/ptols have already Castle + Hero and some siege (-10% pop) Against Ptol, its possible to resist the very hard 1 wave attack and wait enemy to have no more metal .. but with gauls/brits .. their eco are just too good for sparta to resist endless spam of hyper-mobile slingers + stronger celts eco (farm bonus, cheap barracks) over sparta eco (-10% eco and extra building to get hero). Sparta has to rely on late P3 to push back with all upgrades .. but often its already too late ; slingers are walking all around, retreating at will with no casualties (while spartan units are stucked by obstacles) , destroying towers .. and Sparta rams are counter by fast sword cavs .. slingers are massively used coz they are just too easy to use ... and often reach <<< veteran grade and finally are even able to destroy CC alone. Also, when you see stats of units, the slinger is just situated midway between archers and skirmishers .. but seriously .. how can a little stone can make more damage than an arrow or a javelin ? I would suggest the devs to make slingers the fastest infantery (more than skirmishers) but also, the less shielded and less harmful. n.b : i just discover recently that SParta has +10% building time and Celts -20% .. thats huge gap

And for Liberrty and Mortak, sorry borg, it was not the case either . Better you review your sense of judgement and evaluation coz it has more to do with hate than objectivity

Boudica (I won last 1v1) Valihrant (won last mainland but lost 2 navals) borg (lost) Phyzic (1 game long time ago - and now refuses to play with me now) camelius ( 3 - 3 ) chrstgtr (I won last 1v1 ) Feldfeld (lost) RolandSC2 (I won last 1v1) Emperior (refuses to play with me 1v1) faction02 (I won last 1v1) so .. as u can see, your list is a joke spiced with usual hate. And when i say "won last" it doesnt mean i won 1 game , but just shows that taking last result is enough to dismiss false statments. I ask a list of 10 players confirmed better on all type of maps. And i can say that theres is only 3 players i confirm are better than me. Im not saying other players are inferior to me, i m modestly just saying that those 7 other players cannot be classified as better than me.

I never ever pretend to be TOP3, i just pointed out to jc's-haters that they can't give me 10 names of players better than me. I can just give 3 names with certitude. And sorry to insist, but yes, as far as i remember, i won most games. Maybe its just a feeling ?? Glad, you still have all the replays, it's not my case as i switched many times my OS as it's well known. ofc, we can play 20 games to figure out if my claims are fantasy or not.

its lying which makes you incomfortable and pushs you to write all this ? Did i ever said in my comment that u lost most games ? nope, but it seems it was in ur mind .. " 50% " haha And no, im silver = Top10 : not gold = Top3 . Even if my lobby score is 1925, i stay modest and realist on my level. And yes, this thread is not populate of replays with predictable results. Normal.

Would be nice to have some in-game musicians with aura to play drums or flute to motivate troops in formation. Shouts and yells during battles and wave high some flags .This will creates some war ambiance during battles.

i suggest 0AD24 Xenophobic or 0AD Xena warrior Princess to be more inclusive

2 games only ? why be so selective ? uhm ?? he he Boudica, why do you like all the rare games i lose ? Some resentment ? he he

The presence of this replay on the forum is the evidence of how extraordinary and/or lucky this victory was. Stockfish is indeed a better player than you, your joy is justified

oh man, please Put the 4 games we played after. You know ? Those 4 games who made you realize that the first game was just pure luck. 4 games only coz, you refuse to play vs me now x)

Explain me. I miss something

Since this game is about killing people born in the neighbour country ; the name is obvious : 0AD Xenophobic

The "loser braket' seems a good idea . But if i had sign-up , i would have resign 3 first games just to have the pleasure to be in final with lot more chances so many...

Feld gave a good point, I made the assumption that players will play all matches of a round. If a player lose the 3 first matchs of a 5-matchs-round, even if it's lost for him, it's up to him to save his honor by winning the 2 last matchs. With this poll , all the matchs have to be played.

Hi, With this Poll , you can easily communicate the results of the matches/round .. Please answer this poll ONLY when you lost (and thus, finished) a round. The player who lost the round will communicate the results with a single answer(no multiple choices) and the winner will answer this poll later (once he lost a round or won the tournament) I made the poll for the sake of transparency and make organisation easy ! ---------------------------------- Suggestion For the random selection. I have this method i invented . Put the 16 players in a lobby room and ask them to pick an unique number (1 to 16) . Ask an innocent referee outside the lobby room to randomly order number 1 to 16 . Lets say he order like this 13 , 9 , 8 , 10 , 6 , 2 , ... , 15 , 14 . Then the referee comes into the room and communicate to the 16 players the 16 numbers in the order he choosen. (of course he cannot know which number the players have selected) It means that the player who choosed the number 13 will be Player 1 and will fight Player 2 which is the player who choosed the number 9 , .. 8 vs 10 , 6 vs 2 .. 15 vs 14

Hi guys, Just coming back with the subject for 0ad23. Introduction : Do you notice in a team game (for exemple) that some players are very good to play with absolute no considerations for their alliy (allies) and play for them selves , resulting in behaviours such as : building defences just 10 meters away from the battle you are fighting in, the very same battle you cross the whole map to get in, in order to save him. As a result, he often let you fight 2 vs 1 and total ignores the dynamic of numbers in a fight (lanchester law) and the fact that those towers will be totaly useless if you fail to defend him. Results : While you exhaust your whole eco and lose your whole army, that same ally can finish the 2 weakened ennemies, kill all their workers, destroy buildings with rams .. and.. get the highest military at the end of the game ; and all the glory. Observation : the current score system doesnt take into account the time ; in other words : 100 kills at min 5 = 100 kills at min 20. Simple idea : The graph tab shows the evolution of the score. Why dont we take the "area under the curve" (AUC) (the integral in math) as new score (a new tab in the stats)? Early success in the game will have an score impact all along the game. This should be easy to implement as it could be computed at each event (+1 kill) just like it is for the graph. Derivated idea : If you divide the military AUC of a player by the AUC of the whole team / number of players in the team , the you can have a good indicator of performance of that player as his military activity is compared to the average AUC of the team (on the military aspect , but could be done for the eco as well)

the balance of the game is getting better for sure. I just notice that Champions are missing in the battle field. P2's Spartans and Athenians champs are never made , neither skirtais anymore : early P3 is too important

wendy, are u telling me that i have to waste my whole day uploading the tons of games i just won u ? In this game, you knew u gonna lose slowly and the pressure made u want to ban me. I remember you setted the game with the size of the game, you made it rated, etc .. so dare u to ban me ? As everybody can see (in the 2 files) your only strategy is to eco boom , then send all ur army to me and cross your fingers it works .. if it fails (in most of our games) you generaly quit the game by saying you are bored ( demonstration in the first file) . You are getting made because I "run everywhere" its the way to compose with time instead of sending all in deseperation. We argue coz you are maybe the player who has the highest capacity of lying with no shame in the lobby even if there were witness.