badosu
-
Posts
859 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
16
Posts posted by badosu
-
-
4 hours ago, mralex said:
Maybe an other game developer wants us to play their game instead of 0 A.D.
Well, if that was done by BAR developers, I must say it worked
2 hours ago, JohnDoe2 said:Well, you see, with a DDOS you need a target. To get the target's IP you have to attempt to connect to it, or hack up an XMPP client that collects reported host IPs. Without that there's no targeting of the community as a whole. While all the reasons you mention could be considered motivation, that doesn't exclude the need for a mechanism to obtain target IPs.
Just sweep servers and ips on lobby. In any manner, attacker always targets specific targets, mostly op team games. 1v1s are spared (didn't hear a case where 1v1 was attacked).
It's interesting that you had a case of this in a 1v1, I'd not rush to conclusions that it's the person you mentioned though, but it sure would be nice to find the attacker via clumsiness like here. -
Well, it's better to have that and have a player dropping as low percentage of ending game than for certain being dosed.
-
I'd be up to making a mod to help with this, but I'm not sure I understand your tips.
-
1
-
-
Is there a way to make some functionality to deregister from lobby after game starts? That could help.
-
It's every single TG on regular hours on every single day of the week!
Really, nobody can play a TG on regular hours anymore. It's not a sporadic issue.-
2
-
1
-
-
11 hours ago, go2die said:
Also DDOS was proven by Dakara that it recieved abnormal packet trafic over short period of time.
You meant @Dizakaperhaps?
Or maybe dakeyras, dakora, darkcity..
-
1
-
-
As I said, I don't mind a24 being released as soon as possible. I even advocated multiple times for reaching beta status.
But we have a player base, that's been dwindling (at least with regard to the competitive scene) with the lack of progress on balance/performance/addressing the dos issues.
Making at least one of the above worse does not help. But then, I was not even aware we had blockers for a24, especially given the lack of responses to raised questions about it on the forum (do we have a roadmap?).
That said, releasing a24 would do more good than bad for the momentum at the current stage. -
I wouldn't mind relaxing the criteria for releasing a24, however I'd rather have unmerged gameplay patches in the release than a worse balance than a23.
-
Not too difficult to make. I made the monitor mod modular, so you can just take the productionmode + adapt getplayersproduction to not return techs + replicate research_progress.xml and adapt it to your will.
https://github.com/badosu/prodmod/blob/master/gui/session/ProductionMode.jshttps://github.com/0ad/0ad/blob/master/binaries/data/mods/public/gui/session/ResearchProgress.xml
https://github.com/badosu/prodmod/blob/master/simulation/components/GuiInterface~prodmod.js#L168Now if you're taking about adding to vanilla, that's a different story. I think it detracts a bit from the interface, especially (in my experience with monitor mod) on big queues, could be useful as an option for beginners though.
-
Gorgeous!
-
The people have spoken @mysticjim
-
3 hours ago, Nescio said:
In my opinion Age of Empires II is a great example of what 0 A.D. shouldn't do.
Perhaps we agree in general terms
-
3 hours ago, Nescio said:
What would already be a great first step is if the formations already present in 0 A.D. would give minor bonuses
As long as we can also address the issue with formation and pathfinding with strangler trees/obstacles, I agree
-
Just my 2 cents, unless something dramatically changes more differentiation won't bring much improvement to both gameplay and historicity, in my humble opinion. AoE2 has a wide variety of counters, well defined rocks-paper-scissor, and I feel it's kinda boring/spammy/mechanical.
Focusing on mechanics, I wouldn't say an extreme change - maybe flanking, ranged recharge, trampling, melee focus could both make it more interesting from a tactical pov and historically.
Lake trasimene, cannae, Alexanders numerous hammer and anvil with wedge cav formation all could be easily recreated (not that it should be the end-goal but would be awesome nonetheless).-
1
-
-
I think a flanking mechanic like this could work:
- Set a distance threshold, slightly higher than melee range (e.g. 3-4 tiles)
- Find an enemy melee unit inside that threshold
- Define quadrants where that unit is in 45 degree of the first quadrant
- For each other quadrant that has at least another enemy melee unit inside it nerf -1 armor
This could be doable on an experiment mod, I would expect performance to be incredibly poor. Another issue is defining the start quadrant, I'm not sure it's well defined (nerfs are the same regardless the initial unit).
Nevertheless could be a good attempt. -
Counter to heavy infantry is making flanking work as it's supposed to, e.g. a frontal cav charge won't break a compact infantry formation but cav is mobile enough to surround it (anvil and hammer tactic). If enemy does not have cav to counter, they can't avoid formation to be surrounded. Also skirmishers for kiting/hit-and-run.
That's why cav should be a counter to infantry, but not in a simple manner. Also trampling mechanic (for spear cav) could break and induce more flanking nerfs to formation.
I'm not sure how to make it work, the simplest manner would be to nerf armor if a unit is surrounded, but that's too simplistic since one needs to take into account the area (otherwise it will be hardly effective). Another way would be to, when units on formation they receive a buff. When they have formation broken they lose the buff, when they are flanked in an area (e.g. more than one quadrant in a x-tile distance has enemy units) they receive a severe nerf.
What would be nice about this is that the way we take the engagements would matter much more than currently, and would also reward strategy instead of spamming/micro.
When considering counter, think not only on the stats and simple engagements but the role these units perform. Instead of a game where one spam a simple OP unit and a few counters to the opponents counters, prioritizing a well thought army composition and tactics should be rewarded. It's extremely ambitious and I'm not saying you need to do that at the moment, but an ideal to pursue perhaps.
If we were to be really picky about it, an additional morale mechanic would come into play, but that's nearly impossible to do in a fairly competitive manner.
With regard to training (historically), spearmen were definitely the most easy to recruit. Both archers and slingers required extensive training, especially slingers. A slinger without training does not make any sense, they would never catch a target on the battlefied, these are specialized skirmish units. To counter the extensive training required for archers/slingers, javelineers and melee receive better buffs with experience but are terrible at start (also rewards better tactics, can also be changed with techs e.g. start at lvl, champs, etc). Keep in mind that training with regard to melee was more about discipline/keeping formation/holding the line than actual combat prowess.
With this idea in mind, experience buff could be not only increasing stats (e.g. armour/health) but decreasing the threshold of a unit to be flanked. There is nothing that experience helps you with being hit with a javelin if you think about it, but it definitely helps with making the whole formation fight better against another melee formation/holding a cav charge. -
Yeah, I agree Lowlands may get a pass, but I've seen horror stories with the wood gen/obstacle.
Anyway, happy to see some work on this :-)-
1
-
-
Ah, custom map flags, we need you!!! :-)
By the way Edwarf. One should be able to remove the undesirable turtly maps: Lowlands, Passes and Isthmus and backport it to a23.
Was one of the ideas I had in mind, make balanced unknown maps, but the code isn't too friendly for that.
I think if we remove those undesirable maps unknown finally might be a good map for TG (maybe the best). -
Well, that's a good idea but perhaps in the scope of a map/civ pool mod I suggested some time ago.
Still it would help to have a text-based one in autociv -
In much anticipation
-
1
-
-
17 hours ago, ChronA said:
As of yesterday, I have a mod that adds it. I gave ranged units an ammo counter, initialized in their template, and made it so if they run out of ammo but have a melee weapon defined (or if their target gets within their minimum range) they will switch to melee and charge. The ammo count gets reset if they spend enough time out of combat, allowing you to retreat and rearm.
This is sweet! I think I mentioned on some other thread, adding counter mechanic for ranged units could finally make the meta a bit more realistic (and melee-driven).
E.g. send javelineers in front, skirmish as they are supposed to, retreat while the counter recharges. Send in the heavy infantry, skirmish the flanks with the recharges.
Could even make slingers more interesting, as a unit that has no recharge delay but very inaccurate/lower damage against melee units (except my beloved balearic slinger champs :-P).
Archers could be meta without needing a buff, friendly fire would be awesome to restrict abuse (one can only dream
)
-
50 minutes ago, Ultimate Aurelian said:
Since historically most swordsmen were sort of heavy skirmishers that charged after throwing.
As far as I know that's true for the Hastati (romans) but I'm not sure there are references to other civilizations.
Still would definitely be cool for swordsmen to throw pilla. -
Nice to see DE getting some long-deserved love.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_pigQuoteHistorical accounts of incendiary pigs or flaming pigs were recorded by the military writer Polyaenus[10] and by Aelian.[11] Both writers reported that Antigonus II Gonatas' siege of Megara in 266 BC was broken when the Megarians doused some pigs with combustible pitch, crude oil or resin, set them alight, and drove them towards the enemy's massed war elephants. The elephants bolted in terror from the flaming, squealing pigs, often killing great numbers of their own soldiers by trampling them to death.[12][13] According to an account, Gonatas later made his mahouts keep a swine among elephants to accustom the animals to pigs and this practice was immortalized by a Roman bronze coin dating back to his time, which showed an elephant on one side and a pig on the other.
-
1
-
1
-
-
I don't like the attrition model much, mainly due to 2 reasons:
1. Armies were able to station at enemy territory by foraging/plundering the countryside (e.g. Hannibal in Italy), having a static debuff regardless of players actions does not seem sensible to me.
2. Gameplay wise, it's already impossible to win a game at early game, realistically setting the minimum gameplay time to 12 minutes if the opponent does not resign. 0ad is also very turtle-prone and we are already adding another layer of defense buff. Let's not punish raids/aggressive players more than needed
With a buff instead of debuff we are also able to introduce this mechanic at an opportune time, like for example a tech or enabling it in later phases, not interfering with the early game. I agree with @Radiotraining that it should be a rewarding strategical nuance although we know how food supply was critical in historical times.-
1
-
Attacks on 0ad (suspected DoS/DDoS)
in Bug reports
Posted
Wtf, so they're flooding via NTP? Maybe blocking via NTPv2 pattern does it, awesome @aixo!