Feldfeld

And i'd like to know for which points.

About the proposition of splitting singleplayer/online game style, i see few issues there. I think mods could handle much more efficiently single player desires. - Can the devs keep up 2 games at a time while they seem to struggle with only one ? - If some features are officially implemented in singleplayer but not in multiplayer, it would raise some issues are people would be constantly asking for one or an other feature in singleplayer to be in multiplayer too. Also, it would be quite disrupting for players that decide to go play online after having played offline. I believe that most of online players started by playing offline before.

As i said in last post, I still think we can defend cavalry rush without using cavalry. As we both went for rush in last game, it seems obvious that cavalry will be fought with cavalry, and with the very weak and unprotected eco that goes with the rush, winning cavalry fight is crucial.

As we both went for cavalry rush, it seems logical to me that the winner of the cav fights win the game. I keep believing that if one of us went for foot citizen soldiers, he could defend. It's true though that it is a bit more difficult with non hellenic civ. And as servo said, rabbits are still not tamable, and i'm pretty sure that when we don't give them orders, they go where they want.

I've tried this mod with Hannibal_Barca and Grugnas in particular. I played 2 games and took gauls in both to test skirm cav rush and fanatic rush. For now i believe that both are balanced. To be sure of that, more testing is needed of course. As for skirm cav rush : I played against grugnas in a team game and we both did skirm cav rush, the winner of the cav fights won the game. That made Grugnas believe that this mod changed nothing but i don't think so : we both had excellent hunt (ideal conditions to rush) and cav is trained later. This fact makes me believe that it is possible to defend a rush by having enough foot citizen soldiers on wood. About fanatics : I succesfully used them in a team game, making people suspect it's op but : - I think that a fanatic rush is very hard to do correctly and i would be interested in seeing someone else achieving and winning with a fanatic rush in this mod. - I grabbed lots of metal this game ( I used 22k metal in 40 min of gametime) that allowed me to train them even late game which would be impossible in almost every game. A fanatic remain expensive on metal ! These facts make me thinking that fanatics aren't op in is mod, needs more testing of course. In future games i think i'll try some other civ and defend a rush myself.

My point, when speaking with mapkoc, was that i think that with the accuracy rework, archers reach more moving target, so it would buff archers. So i suspected that your graphs were without moving targets, thus underestimating the changes for archers from a21 to a22, and this is why archers would be better than what the graphs shows (in addition of their strength when massed that we already knew). I'm pretty sure that you would find a difference between a21's and a22's archers if you made graphs on moving targets and it would seem difficult to me to balance with these graphs only. But the fact that archers are better against moving targets compared with a21 might only be my own feel and maybe it needs confirmation.

I'll give 6 replays that were played in the start of a22. Enjoy ! 2v3 skirm cav in hunt map.7z 2v3 : Feldfeld, merlin1 vs Pretension (JC), Chronical, echotangoecho. Map : African plains This game, a bit imbalanced shows the strentg of skirm cav when massed in such a hunt map. 3v3 Arctic summer trade map.7z 3v3 : Feldfeld, Emperior, kjager vs Pretension (JC), Grugnas, Chronical. Map : Arctic summer Seems like Arctic summer is confirmed as a tradespam map, as there is few wood. If i recall well, there is wood treasure at the start, but this time treasures were disabled. 4v4 skirm cav in hunt map, and leaving.7z 4v4 : Feldfeld, merlin1, Uran238cz, realNoobNoob vs Grugnas, kjager, yunk2, Pretension (JC). Map : African plains Shows once more the importance of skirm cav in this map (and the weakness of spear cav civs in early and middle game in such maps). The game ended after some ppl leaved, and couldn't be replaced (is that possible with the use of STUN to host ? Or i just gave wrong ip ?). So don't be surprised with a major suicide, and a resignation that seems at first sight not justified. 2v2 ele stealing.7z 2v2 : Emperior, Feldfeld vs Dizaka, Emperior. Map : Mainland With the accuracy rework, elephants are easier to hunt. They were even called "food treasures that follow you home". It becomes important to try to steal as much as possible. Elephants are crucial and decide the games they're in. 3v3 strength of skirmisher cavalry.7z 3v3 : reek (ragnar), temple, mapkoc vs ITRELLES1, chrstgr, Feldfeld. Map : Frontier This replay shows the strength (OPness ?) of skirmisher cav rush in hunt map. If they're massed enough early game, what can stop them ? 3v3 army composition.7z 3v3 : reek (ragnar), mapkoc, chrstgr vs Feldfeld, _jr_, ITRELLES1. Map : Frontier I called this replay like this, because i think that gauls have a very weak late game army composition, and that now they're one of the weakest civs. As always, you can download all replays in a pack : pack.7z. This post may not respect the rules of the subforum, but i would find it pretty boring to create a thread for each replays i want to post, so i made it like this. I won't do it again if i'm asked not to.

Either you played a map where this building is disabled (i only know a map "belgian uplands" or something like that), or it is a bug triggered in game setting. If i recall well, if you select this map where the building is disabled, then choose another map, the lighthouse will remain disabled even if it shouldn't. Maybe a dev will confirm, not sure of what i said.

Actually, being a spectator makes cheating easy currently. You can find all these informations easily by seeing the stats of the game and of all the players. The suggestion made here would make it easier to have these informations (constantly refreshed and without needing to go to another screen, you would see it while seeing the game). The spectator also has strategic informations (what the other player is doing, what army does he make etc).

I don't have a good argument against that, but main city or the most representative should've worked for any given faction too. In some of the articles i found on wikipedia, in a few of them i saw something like: The capital of "xxxxxx" kingdom/empire was "xxxxxx" I was just saying that about the confederation of tribes, but a particular tribe, or a civilisation can i think have a capital.

I remained silent using "main city" term because i don't really know if the term "capital" really has a meaning in that particular time with a confederation. About Alesia, yes it was the place of the decisive gaul defeat (my french mind may tend to remember gaul victories only after all ) but the city itself, from what i saw in quick wikipedia research ( https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandubiens in french) seemed to be the capital of the mandubii, which didn't seem to be part of the most important gaulish tribes. Soldiers from different tribes gathered here under the command of Vercingetorix to fight, do we know more about the city ? Didn't it end up being important only for being the place of the decisive defeat which lead the confederation to lose the war ? (But i remind i only know history very approximately)

I can suggest Gergovia for the gauls, which was i think the main city of the Arverni, the tribe that could unify a good part of the gaul tribes against Rome. It was also the place of a prestigious victory of that confederation against rome (so you could maybe find more references). But since i only know a few about history, what i say is potentially false and i wait for someone to suggest a better city or correct what i said.

I confirm this and think that almost everything written is correct, however it seems to me that you posted it in the wrong forum. EDIT : didn't see the "tutorials & guides" subforum, but still, it seems to be tutorials and guides to modify the game itself, not gameplay guides, which belong i think to "gameplay discussion" forum.

Cavalry rushes can be balanced though. Now from what i saw in a22 changes, currently it may be skirmisher cav that is better than spear cav even early game. Still, interesting proposal in original post, but the way he described it would make for sure cavalry rushes, or even cavalry in general useless.

Some 1v1s I played yesterday. Feldfeld (sele) vs WarriorSpartan (Ptols).7z Civs were chosen randomly. As they were imba, i offered a re and he declined, not much to say on this game. Feldfeld (ibers) vs WarriorSpartan (persia).7z A mistake ended the game quite fast. PhyZic (brit) vs Feldfeld (sparta).7z This game shows one more time how one unit rules a21's middlegame. It will be balanced on a22. PhyZic (mace) vs Feldfeld (gauls).7z By far the most interesting game of the series. PhyZic (rome) vs Feldfeld (gauls).7z Some rushes. Note that, about the maps, in my second game against PhyZic, he had hunt advantage. In the 3rd game, i had berry advantage. You may want to download all the games in a pack : pack.7z

If ennemy is forced to hide in CC you've won the game.

If you want elexis, I am ok to play in multiplayer maps that don't have few chokepoints easily wallable, for example mainland, with stone wall allowed, and actually use the wall, to see if their ban is only a tradition that is not relevant in a21. It can be a good test. it would too be interesting to know if we should ban putting multiple layers of wall. Consider, too, that it can be interesting for a player to wall a building, that is of course unrealistic. With walls allowed, you can for example circle with walls a 2nd CC if you don't want to spend the stone and the time to circle the area, which you would do later. They would still be very vulnerable against slingers in a21, and likely ranged siege (catapults) in a22. But it would "add" them HP against rams for example, and prevent capture, for not much of stone added. This example and multiple layers of walls can be considered abusing, so you should discuss allowing it or not.

Decided to record the game ... I might reveal some secrets i have Without commentaries due to no mic though, and in the videos there are little sound issues.

Walls aren't allowed for the reasons wowgetoffyourcellphone said. When causative said they are (a) a waste of resources, and (b) easy to walk around, it is only true for age 1 where it takes some time to close fully the wall, so at this age it is some investment. But after that, walls protect very effectively from both raids and full scale attacks, in a way that they would bring games into full trading very long games, because very hard to break, and i think there are some way to mass wall tower in an area, that fires a lot of arrows that make it even more difficult to break. Also, you could add multi layers of walls.

Hi, When I installed NVIDIA GeForce experience in order to record the game, and i updated my drivers, some weeks ago, i got almost the same error you described in last post I think you have the same issue since you record videos too. Note that it doesn't prevent me to play the game, i can push "continue", and it runs the game and i can play multiplayer too. I hope this information can be useful.

Yes, not enough information but i still trust that, following the "better than nothing" logic : sometimes, i see games setup where a player say that currently the game is not balanced, the host says "suggest changes" but none are suggested. The ranking system would maybe suggest a balancing. sometimes, the host, and the players, don't all know each others. Maybe, by checking the rating system, we can see who's the closest known player to the unknown one to have an estimation that i would call somewhat decent, because the issue here would be how the ranking is made. It would give a relative strength value that i think is used by most of people to balance. I would call that better than nothing. So here what i don't agree about is this sentence : sometimes, a help, even if it still doesn't give a perfect balance, is helpful and good to take, or at least that's what i think, from my experience in the game.

You're right, i expressed badly... What i mean is that currently, it is a ranking, not a rating (and i made the mistake many times already in the thread). Currently teams are balanced considering relative players strength, so they don't use probabilities. I guess a way to try to balance a game with this ranking is to put on a team, the best ranked player with the 4th, the 5th and the 8th (following the logic of "the first beat the 2nd, but the 3rd beat the 4th etc) but of course players can be same strength and that messes up a bit the balance. I'm simply not sure we can use probabilities with a ranking only and not a rating. Though causative in a post tried to rate players from 0 to 5 considering their ranking so i don't really know.

Even though i don't have an especially good level in statistics or mathematics, i'll try to answer this considering the idea of causative ... first thing i want to clarify is that (if i understood well) is that a "win" or a "loss" is not the actual outcome of the multiplayer game, but a comparison of arbitrary selected statistics of the game (with good weight for killed units). This sole fact means that anyway the goal was from beggining to give an estimation and not predict a probability of winning a multiplayer game. So i think that causative explained his system better that i would have done with my english ... so what's measured is actually a serie of 1v1s in a multiplayer games. If you play a 4v4 game you actually play 3 games, between your allies. As this was not criticized i wanted to make sure it's clarified... 1. So as i said i am not good in statistics but from how i see it : supposing the arbitrary selected score of a game used to compare players are good (though we know it's not the case), then this "multiplayer" rating is similar to the current 1v1 rating of the game : if statistics laws applies to multiplayer rating, it also applies to the 1v1 rating system of this game, so that would mean the 1v1 official system is as bad as this multiplayer system. So knowing that, the issue of this multiplayer system is how score describe a multiplayer game which we, i think, all acknowledge is not 100% accurate, score for example doesn't measure how good a strategy is unless it rewards more kills etc... 2. Already talked about that in a post in the thread, even if i don't speak well, but still, how i see it : indeed, games are supposed to be balanced, but since it's not the outcome (win/loss) of the entire multiplayer game that is measured, i think that we should take other conclusions of this. We have players of different strength in a team. It is supposed to be balanced at the start : that mean players already use more or less relative estimations of a player's strength, in a way that better players play with weaker players. If the game's score agreed with the human estimation of a player's strength, it simply gives a human help to multiplayer rating estimation. 3. i still think another conclusion should be taken. You emphasized the fact that players in a multiplayer games may play in different conditions each game (and i think it is more about fighting a player in the opposing team who is stronger than the one your ally fights) but i would say that with more and more games this fact tends to disappear. 4. Well, for the "smurf" term i guess everyone has its own meaning, though for the troll one : the guy hannibal called a troll was actually the guy who caused a huge disruption, who was the cause of closing registrations. I don't think this term will be used again anytime soon. EDIT : by the way Feldfeld = Attila2 well, i play chess and in chess too we see upsets : i already beat a player rated 400 over me and drew one rated 450 over me. It doesn't need 1000 games to be accurate. In 0a.d., if a player doesn't want to win i think the it will be seen in the score. But generally as far as i'm concerned in multiplayer games players try to win. And yes, it seems elo system doesn't work in 0a.d. since causative noticed that fide rating doesn't work here for reasons described in first post.

Full of smurfs and banned people, yes, but best ranked ones are known i think. There are also smurfs that aren't kicked from 1v1 rankings too, furthermore 1v1 ranking is unrealistic in some way, too, since people that play more 1v1s will tend to have better ratings (without considering their actual level). A lot of players deserve being better ranked in 1v1s but they didn't play enough, so top 100 not only is full of inactive people (hence unrealistic considering their level is now not known), but with active players that remain low ranked because of lack of games. This multiplayer is unrealistic too indeed because sometimes stats aren't enough to assess one's help to the team, and because teams are already supposed to be balanced in pre-game balancing, that means that it is done in a way so that better players are seeded with weaker ones. One of the consequence is that some players are already supposed to be in top of their team from the beggining and won't face best players of opposing team. So from the lot of games i played, i was almost never in borg's team and hence almost never faced him (only when i started 0ad and one recent game i think). But i still think that in general this ranking tend to guess well reality, will be better if we remove known smurfs.

sent replays