ffm2

Indeed Boudica. Not even the market exploit is considered a cheat. Reza knows about quickstart, Seleucids knows reza considers it a cheat. I think its quite distasteful bringing up war or PTSD here. Reza had this stance before the war already. Reza probably doesn't really care but bringing this up does not show a interest in a reasonable discussion. Instead the sanity of the conversational partner is attacked.

Some quiz could also be fun and help to learn some specific things. Team boni of civs or catafalques. For catafalques you are hit with a wall of text and don't have time to read in game anyway, so it could help to learn them. But then one needs to maintain this each balance as well.

I just meant the pattern that the amazon bots show. Incoming and outgoing trade ships have the same direct line as path and tried to avoid each other by going left and right. But I'm not sure on that either as I don't play naval voluntarily. Ships in general still block a lot. Players are incentivized to squeeze as many ships in the channel as they can. What works a bit against this are champion archer taking them out from a distance.

Too many ships on the same route could also block each other. I think it doesn't happen in 0 A.D. anymore, but I had a little deja vu when I saw this pathfinder bug in amazon robots

Some fighting scenarios where - Units walk under fire, which could be fixed by pressing H (stop). So the units attack the nearest units. - Units walk to a fight in a row like ducklings, which need the action to gather together before entering a fight. - Appropriate reaction to 3 cavs running around a base searching for weak spots (garrison women only on one side of farms)

A bit derived brainstorming: Some mini-challenges would be nice. The unknown player could do this challenge to prove a bit game knowledge. I think of it like this: 1. Host sets up a game in the lobby 2. A few players join, one is unknown 3. Unknown player gets the mini-game to solve 4. The unknown player plays the game and parallel the host could set up the game, balance the teams, new players can join As a side effect one could also test the connection between host and unknown player.

I just installed it because it shows up on top right when you open synaptic (package manager on ubuntu some time ago) alphabetic listed. But I admit I rarely type it the correct way "0 A.D." This is written in the English Wikipedia article citing websites from 2010, so I doubt it's the current plan. The current civilizations and heroes are from 500 B.C. to 500 A.D. afaik. E.g. Boudica reigned from 60 - 61 A.D. and she doesn't look older than 60 in game. I don't think the game needs fancy advertisement, articles or such. Just focus on quality of the game and community.

The replay does not start from turn 0 and can't be replayed sadly. This happens on late joins. As real_tabasco_sauce said, the turn length can vary highly. In the oddity_detector the duration of the turn is computed, but not logged for replays (which could help a lot in those cases). Although it could vary for spectators again in comparison to the players. They can delay or speed up, so the players have less lag. A indicator for lag (or pause) is when more players than one have lots of commands during a turn. The reaction to garrison the ram is one a normal player would anticipate and focus on, so a fast reaction seems plausible. Same turn could also be for fast ungarrison and garrison. This is the case here. There is also some variance to see: turn 6776 is a ungarrison and 8 turns (1.6 in game seconds) later a garrison command is send. Ram attack interval is 1.5 seconds. Then turn 6793 is ungarrison and 6802 is garrison (9 turns). Turn 6776 sends the same command twice, which a program wouldn't (if it's not extra programmed to mix in slight variances to hide itself). Does someone else have the complete replay? With this doubt in mind you could check other games of Zekromus. I plead for not guilty.

cmd 1 {"type":"tribute","player":1,"amounts":{"food":100}} so cmd X ... "player":X

You can sent yourself resources through a command. This might seem useless, but It is not cleanly programmed You can obfuscate the statistics

Atm. for me it depends. Ideally, long time ago when I could out-boom other players it's not necessary and slows you down (hence turtling). I prefer amoebae-style reach for extra res. or be near the front player. That again makes my base a bit weaker. House walls in combination with surrounding hills and just some gates are a good compromise. Especially if you expect another player to come with lots of cavs or siege maps (Corinthian isthmus, ambush) I get infuriated when I see teammates building huge stone walls, indicating they have no intention in joining a fight anytime soon (except they communicate before, "I turtle you can help on the other side") Another huge priority is that workers should not walk across your base a lot. So if you think on that side could fit some wall/building use only a few workers and preferably ones from nearby or maybe don't at all. That also goes for amoebae-stretch for res, it could be bad to stretch for some berries if you're exposed there and don't have any other business there.

Your horse doesn't fit in a tower. In the cc or fort it's ok. Except when the game setting is regicide and hero garrison is off, then also no additional arrows. Maybe just change the tooltip to "it's complicated".

There are some efforts. The 1v1 rating in the lobby is a elo rating which could help to some point. A strong player in 1v1 is not weak in team games. Weaknesses: Not everyone plays regularly rated 1v1s and some have low elo on purpose (for fun). Smurf accounts start again at 1200 or they gained their elo years ago and don't play rated again. Local ratings mod rates the players based on their scores. This score usually is skewed for some players. ValihrAnt e.g. is one of the best and rated mediocre. One could develop this further and check where the score lacks. But it would always be a system where you expect a player to act in a way and not rate how successful the team actually is. Local ratings with elo or glicko-2 rating based on pure wins of teams do not get enough games to divide good and bad players from 4v4 games. I did a sketch of this, the results weren't satisfying. Maybe it would work if the databases of 4 heavy players join their databases. A team lobby rating like the 1v1 might work, is untested though. This would also require that games are often labeled as rated. Some players do indeed complain a lot until their team is very unlikely to lose. Ideally the player would lose and win 50% of the games and just rank up in the rating.

To be pedantic: Maurian champion archer (woman) add arrows. Most healers (men) don't add arrows. Also the hero Hippocrates does not add arrows. "Per Unit" might be changed to "Per Solidier" to clarify this.

Of course. Same. That's why I just unload it so lazy here instead of writing proper git tickets as I should. Sorry for that.