Boudica

Let's wrap it up with a classic for now.

It's getting danker.

No names have been mentioned.

Thanks to the anonymous moderator for approving my previous post. I hope you'll like this one too.

I really appreciate that you guys took the time to verbally appreciate my memes. I'll now make a few more, with a progressively declining standard of quality.

At this point, I no more believe that the cheaters are trying to have a reasonable discussion. It's just like "What could I write that would be reminiscent of an argument to possibly let me keep doing what I'm already doing?". Half of this is just trying to shift or relativize the topic, or telling fair players to either cheat too or go play elsewhere. Then, when a counter-argument is taken apart and proven as flawed, they will just repeat it unchanged in a new thread. Tell a lie often enough, right. Or, maybe even put the lie right in your bio. That way it gets automatically repeated after anything you write. Smart. So I see @Seleucids say "STOCKFISH DOESN'T CHEAT", and that's a really bold statement to put in your bio because of how hard it is to prove. Meanwhile, there are people like me who just do have the proof in the form of replays, eyewitness testimony, screenshots of chats discussing the usage of the mods (what is meant here by cheating anyway). So what is it now? It's just acting dumb and trolling.

When the support for up to 15-player team games is added

It definitely was a nightmare... to the enemies who had to do "everything else", but they were lacking the wood for that anyway, while my allies could keep spamming warships and disrupting the trade, which was the only remaining source of wood. Sure, it wasn't easy to evaluate all the various factors and come to the conclusion that doing an efficient trade was indeed the best use of the scarce APM available. Those five clicks per minute completely sucked me into a "sea-based trade with land traders" vacuum, making me unable to focus on anything else but winning the game. I think it starts showing that there is now little variety of the hosted games. People just have their one mainland build and will run if a setting change requires them to do something different. Even considering that a strategy could mean something you do when it's the right time for that, rather than something you now just do every time, becomes hard.

The repeated mention of the word nightmare in reaction to a powerful idea that I shared with you has somewhat turned me into a sarcastic mode. Imagine having to click periodically in order to acquire required resources! What's next? Having to place a new house every time you reach the pop limit? Restarting unit production at the barracks every minute? Or! Imagine having to manually pack up your catapult in order to move it to the next strategic target every time. Almost sounds like they're requiring you to control what's happening in real time. We could as well give it a funny name to that effect, something like... IDK, a "real-time strategy".

So it turns out that the question Thales asked isn't a bad one at all. The most profitable way to trade on a naval map would indeed be using land traders that you manually put in and out of a ship. And I wouldn't really use a merchant ship for that. You'd want to use the bigger, faster and stronger warship. Athens used to have a hero boosting the speed of the ship he was in, so you'd definitely want that. Now, you need to be precise about how you handle the merchants for this to work. You want to set them up to trade between the docks (or markets), starting from the one that is reachable by them (on the same island), and when they start carrying resources, you put them in the ship. After moving the ship to the destination and dropping them off, you need to use the back to work command (this is the key part). Only that will ensure you won't lose the carried resources. I had tested this strategy previously, and in a low-resource naval environment, I can definitely imagine that this could work. One player could probably focus on just managing merchants and sling resources to allies.

When the "sh1t ally" from the previous game is now facing you and winning

When all your DPS has died, so you don't need to keep dancing with your hero anymore.

100 Food

How about me? Do I "add arrows"?

Hi there, I assume that the problem could also lie in the diplomacy settings (i.e. "Are they really an enemy?"). When setting up the match, make sure that their team number is different from yours (or there can be no team number assigned to both players). If the diplomacy mode is enabled (meaning if it's allowed to change your teams during the game), you can try opening the diplomacy setting (icon somewhere in the top right corner) and check if the AI is set to Enemy and not Neutral.

Interestingly, there is a difference between HP and armor bonus when it comes to healing: the armor doesn't reduce healing as it does taking damage. That would make an armor bonus stronger than a HP one. When Ptolemies had this cavalry hero that gave extra 40% HP to pikemen in his aura, you could heal the pikemen faster by moving them out of the aura. I remember playing some games from the times before the exponential armor system, and there seemed to be a problem where if a unit or building had more armor points than you had damage points, you wouldn't be able to cause damage to it anymore. And so there was a hard-coded minimum of 1 HP damage (one other detail is that nowadays the HP uses the fractional part, even if it's not shown). That could mean that you were better off using a greater number of very weak units (like archers) because you had the the guarantee of at least 1 HP per arrow shot.

Maybe the game should ask about your dietary preference at the start. If you are a meat eater, a piece of meat will be used for the icon. If you are vegetarian, it will show an omelette as the icon and hunting will be disabled for you. If you are vegan, it will broadcast a message telling everyone about that for your convenience.

A fun thread bump. It's been almost six years, and the people having this discussion back then are now mostly gone. It seems that 0 A.D. could survive without a new fundraising. Would extra funds help? Perhaps. But I see how it might be hard to put a price on different kind of contributions and come to an agreement with the whole team. Maybe it would be easier to directly donate to individuals who have been working on the game. No contracts or obligations, no disputes. That could work. Just make an overview for individual volunteers with summaries of tickets resolved, commits pushed, etc., and their plans for future works. And then let a contributor selects who he's gonna pay and how much. Like when you order from Humble Bundle (I haven't for a few years, so not sure if it still works the same).

So it's like the updated version of the Mauryan ram Easter egg.

ChatGPT prompt: You are team Cheaters. Make a lengthy opinionated article using what has been said in the old thread. Sorry for not being too nice, but you must see that opening a new thread by stating that people missed the point can come across as insulting. From the part I read, it would seem you could also be OK with people driving a marathon by car, etc. I don't think there is value in repeating old points in many words. It's as if you preferred the strawman argument, rather than adding to what has already been said. There wasn't a need to explain that "Directly tampering with the simulation in multiplayer is already impossible" because that's not even what the quote says. "Modifying the world in ways they shouldn't be able to" (what the quote says) really is possible to do. So now what? Who is missing the point? I gotta go now, I unfortunately don't have that much time for these discussions anymore.