badosu

This is great, good job!

Congratulations @Langbartthis looks awesome!

~Omg no balmaps, must be a conspiracy!~ Nevermind, I'm dumb

It does, provides fair distribution of wood in phase 2 range

Yeah, would be interesting to do a 4-player map for 1v1 with random start positions, similar to how its done on SC2 tournaments

Balanced maps has a grid configuration for starting positions in certain maps (slopes and bal hyrcanian shores). The algorithm can be adapted to make 6. 1. 2. 3. 4. and 7. is just adjusting the already existent place players in a circle algorithm (adjusting by map size and radius of circle) 5. and 5.1. is just adjusting the algorithm to use an ellipse with starting angle

I think it would be nice to see sparta developed to an extreme, even if balance might be challenging. Making it mostly eco-driven run by helots could provide both a great differentiation value and be historically accurate.

Definitely feasible, though I'd not personally use it.

I don't understand this argument, do we have a weekly release or a way to get a recent-ish release in an easy manner? Otherwise I think this is mostly noop

To be frank, all civs should have log-ram on phase 2. The fact we have to wait for phase 3 to have siege is a big issue imo in terms of pace. We should be able to have quick games without requiring a resign Then celts could have some op bonus for log-rams

The preview must be an image crafted by yourself, it is also very buggy if you don't provide an exact format that the game expects (otherwise might crash the browser or bug the preview itself). On the map json you need to include: ` "Preview" : "<yourmapname>.png", ` and then provide the png on ├── art │ └── textures │ └── ui │ └── session │ └── icons │ └── mappreview -> <yourmapname>.png

Some feedback there: > The biggest problem in this game is the networking. It seems to have the same sort of networking issues Age of Empires did before the HD revamp, except worse. Once you hit a 100+ units for each player, the gameplay slows down dramatically. If the multiplayer desyncs, the game is over and there's no way to continue. The unit pathfinding is pretty janky as well. > I've played it, we liked it, but the multiplayer issues made it a non-starter for us. And while other changes have been made, it doesn't seem like any real networking optimizations have been made in years. The only recent change that might help is them adding a global population max in addition to a per player one, so you can keep the lag from getting too bad but add more units per player as other people get eliminated. But it's not enough.

Also, biome features looks incredibly awesome in this release btw

None of the issues I pointed out present on the replay are related to the terrains for that matter, in my opinion the bottleneck is somewhere else. Not saying there's anything we can do at the moment to address it immediately with the manpower we have, just pointing things out.

My answer would be no until we have at least specs asynced, ideally with perf optimizations and network rework. Look at this post that is on first page on hacker news atm: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26558180 My first idea of sharing gameplay was to post this video for reference: After inspecting it for a bit notice how much attention is brought to lag and having to kick specs, the trees inside walls, lack of hotkeys, having to use low graphic settings, etc etc... It was just embarassing, eventually I had to edit the post.