BreakfastBurrito_007

I really appreciate this feature as I've been trying to make myself more resistant to cav rushes. One missing aspect of snapping seems to be for palisades and walls. In the meantime there is progress on wall segments deleting trees upon completion. To complement that it would be great to snap palisades and wall segments to other buildings to help eliminate holes!

I'm starting to hear suggestions that rome is borderline OP due to the fertility festival (ff), at the same time people seem to agree it is cool bonus. I agree, but personally I would want to wait for copycats (of chrstgtr's strategy, or a better one) to appear before deciding to make any adjustments. At the same time there are other issues relating to ff which we could look at if we want to adjust things: 30 second train time for all house sizes (5 pop 10 pop 20 pop): regardless of rome, it would be nice to adjust this so that 5 pop is slower, and 10pop houses are still 30 seconds) batch modifier for CC is slower than that for barracks: I would suggest lowering cc batch modifier to equal that of barracks. This would mean the gap between cc production and fertility festival would be less extreme fertility festival is expensive in food which is already needed to make use of the tech, and takes 60 seconds to research. I think if something like bullet 1 and or 2 is done, then a cost and research time reduction is warranted, reducing some food cost and 60-> 40 seconds. in the meantime you can just rush lules.

CPU: How many traders? "More"

I don't think a discount on half of the smith techs would take away options from players. Just like the iber team bonus doesnt take away the option to make slingers (many players continue to make slingers because they prefer them for combat). The main holdup for me about this change would be which techs to choose for which civ. No matter how hard you try to balance the techs there will be one that is better than the other. Also because its a team bonus very often see the same effect as the original bonus because of how frequently we see both brit and gaul in the same team. I take the Athens team bonus as a recent addition that has been very fun to play with.

it was about someone's pre-existing personal dislike for that spec, the spectating player had not written anything in chat.

I think also that there is unlimited potential for both skill and strategy in aoe2. If we compare it to aoe4 for example we see the dos and don'ts for making a great rts. Each strategy in aoe2 also rewards skill development to execute them better, which enables a pro scene but also enhances replayability for lower level players. Ranged units don't always hit, you need to manage them to maximize their efficacy. If you open a gate it stays open until it can close, so you can put a unit there to hold it open. In aoe4 strategies are formed just by a tree of choices with limited room for differences in execution beyond the basic mechanics. How lame is it in aoe4 that ranged units always hit and that gates are a 100% effective passive filter for your units? I guess I've harped on this before lol

If you click norse harold's definition of defamation it needs to be "false or unjustified". The only falsehood being spread is that your mod does not provide an unfair advantage, which it most absolutely does. The only injustice was 90% of players you played against being uninformed of your mod and its gameplay effects. It was sickening to watch you indulge in your progui advantage against players who struggled to match the input rate, so I informed other players and spoke out about what your mod is, how it affects gameplay, and most importantly how to detect its use.

Never once did I take a game hostage. And I frankly do know what I'm talking about, if I don't know about topics I stay quiet or ask questions. Its good you bring this up @Atrik because cheating as well as bad behavior (ie taking the game hostage) within hosts are very hard to moderate. Good hosts can make a difference by banning or excluding players after asking them to stop. In some cases like yours this is extremely effective, where players gradually decided they didn't want anyone to have an unfair advantage.

Appeasement. Players are now doing as Geriatrix wishes in order to not incur his wrath. This is a dangerous path.

1 by 1 clearly has the fastest return on investment according to the above math. But its very important that you re-invest that return in order for the extra ROI to be impactful. Because of this I recommend 1 by 1 only for periods of time where you can avoid floating resources. Keep in mind that as you get more units your income will surpass expenditure after some time so its important to invest these extra resources into something (a house, an extra barracks, a tech).

In the video newbie rush is talking about an old mod for 0ad in a23. There is a version of autociv for a26 but I've never heard of it having an autotrainer. Definitely pros do not use autotrainers apart from the basic "autoqueue" that comes in the base game. Advanced auto-trainers are considered an unfair advantage. I can make some recommendations for how to keep your barracks training. Adjust the batch training size factor to 1 in settings-> game session -> batch training size. Put all barracks and possibly even the cc on a control group so that you can access them all with one button. If using autoqueue make the batch size smaller than you think you need. This reduces the minimum amount of banked res needed to avoid idling barracks.

Many people suggest that these units need to be replaced by stables/barracks. This is boring imo. The worst offender for this is of course the famous han academy costing 300 stone and 300 metal. We can turn this disadvantage into an advantage/ differentiation feature by removing unlock techs from these buildings and/or decreasing train time proportionally to their cost.

maybe but sometimes it does solve the problem. For example Shyft_sierra.

A lot of players come and go and forget passwords. The 50% who don't face consequences are the 50% who are forthcoming about their actual rank/level of play and their previous account name.

If walls were more effective in slowing/stopping melee cav and more easily sealed, then it would justify an increase in the per wall cost (especially for palisades). This way you could have less wall spam in favor of careful base design and cost effective partial walling. At the same time I think having reduced build time for palisades and/or walls is a good option.

I think the unlock techs from barracks/stable are be ok since those are buildings you want anyway. It could also be a case by case situation. Definitely champions coming from unique buildings (Han academy)(gym) should get a train speed buff according to the building cost. Han academy is 300 stone 300 metal.

@Atrik your explanation makes sense, thanks for sharing it. I still think that if the resulting smaller army size was worth it, we would see players do this much more frequently.

well I guess I should say its uncommon (around 1/10 games you see one player do this) because its not a significantly better boom. Even over the time I've observed your gameplay you've gone from making up to 120 at the peak of your reliance on progui, and then down to 65-70 recently as you've gained actual game knowledge and skill.

I based it off of the current meta. You have to delete women after a while. Also stockfish isn't exemplary for 0ad gameplay since he plays with different tools compared to the vast majority. If going 85+ women was significantly better then many more players would try it other than those with special advantages. To be honest I think a male economic unit available in p2 would also be very interesting for choosing when to go p2.

forts don't really help you turtle on their own since you still need the whole army. If you read through the discussion on that thread the issue boils down to the protective power of infantry CS from p1 through the rest of the game. CS infantry are also marginally faster in wood production and significantly faster for mining, and can also be trained from multiple barracks. One way to put it is that there is no "naked" boom in 0ad, in fact booms with as many as 80-90 women aren't much faster than a safer boom with 45-55 women. Of course a male economic unit could help with this, meaning a "naked" boom would be composed of women and male eco unit, freeing up infantry citizen soldiers to primarily serve as fighters early on. As for civs that need a fort to make the heros, I think it makes sense for some civs like ptol and ibers which have fast booms and strong heros. Others like seleucids have niche uses for their heros and its nice that they can come out of the cc. I think we should use a range of hero origins (cc, special building, temple, fort) as needed by civ design. Carth or Kush could definitely benefit from getting heros from something faster than the fort.

well ya got to put in industrial agriculture and oil too, but otherwise pretty accurate. I give you mainland unbalanced:

I think there are two main reasons why we usually see only fights with maximum size armies (aside from rushing and raiding). One of them is the citizen soldier implementation and the lack of a male economic unit. See "booming=turtling" below. Adding a male economic unit would mean that the barracks would no longer be the principal economic building and there would be more variations between booming and turtling. Additionally, forge techs in 0ad are very general and apply to many units at once. Adding unit specific upgrades could allow smaller, more specialized armies to exploit the timing value of unit specific upgrades.

So basically people have just been name-dropping vali and others to piggyback off of their credibility because they know they don't have any of their own. Interesting.

Thats an interesting concept, as long as everyone buys into the scripts arms race and agree on what can be modified. In Aoe2 they host a little tournament where players design AIs that play against each other, which is kind of the next step beyond what you mention. I would say that this philosophy does not apply to 0ad as its supposed to be a videogame, so just because a player can make a script for automatically managing production buildings doesn't mean he deserves to wield that advantage over his non computer-savvy opponents.

Who are you talking about here? I'm a bit confused.