ffm2

There's a bug: one can't rotate buildings by holding the mouse button pressed and move the pointer on a obstruction. That's necessary to turn a storehouse between trees just right. The bug is in input~!autociv.js. I don't need any input changes, so I removed the file.

The problem is that a lot game relevant "skills" is not covered in the scores though. I think a score for "enemy presence", a bit like the exploration score would help a bit. This is more directed to the main game though. A player should get a score from enemy units near him based on time and distance. E.g. player 1 has 3 units, player 2 has 15 units. Player 1 can just run around and make the 15 units chase him. Player 1 should then receive more "enemy presence" points. Currently all would count as idle, not making eco or military score. This would also favor someone who gets 2v1 attacked. LR doesn't make the scores though, only weights whats there.

When I checked for the unusual high sniping activity I came to the conclusion that its a auto-clicker. There are a lot of games where this is prohibited and reason for bans. It's definitely the case that some players are using such mice and see no harm in it and it's the case that some players would like that such mice/features were not used. I don't like the current balance where one is incentivized to target the ranged units at the back (because they have less armor and deal much damage). Besides that, even if the balance were changed to my liking and melee were a high priority target, I think the feature of the target area could still be beneficial in situations. To take out healers, elephants, heroes or so. I think "sniping upgrade" could be a interesting upgrade. That doesn't upgrade any stat. but how well the army acts together in later games. Upgrade 1: Target the unit which requires the least amount of attacks within your range Upgrade 2: Be aware of where the other soldiers shoot and don't shoot more arrows on a unit than necessary. I know some game that had these as upgrades. Should be priced high though, as they are quite valuable.

I don't know about this part. I haven't played AOE2 in so long that I can't say anything about it. AFAIK borg and Valihrant were also good AOE2 players. I don't think one should change the complexity based on the current skill of the lobby users. I think it would be interesting to see statistics of nr. of players over the time. How a releases draws in players, how it may go down over time. Maybe with elo ranges. For myself I can say that I don't have as much of a competitive drive as before "enhancement mods" were around.

Yes it does. You don't have the final say in the truth. Also: there's never a mind challenging task you add to the eco that you would rather like to solve in your base while you are raiding. You just removed the "boring repetitive" ones. All your "features" go just one way, you remove penalties and make the game easier in a competition with the ones that still have to deal with the penalties.

That is no argument. The whole game is a artificial problem. If you want to relax, there is no problem in setting the starting resources to high. Your production won't turn of. You can also use proGUI which changes 0a.d. more to your liking, just as DOTA changed Warcraft 3 with a shift of the focus to the heros. The Idea of these "artificial problems" is that the player has tasks in his base even while raiding that may get neglected. The key is for the player to prioritize on the more beneficial: Is the raid good or doing more damage to your economy. In depth also discussed here: The community is heavy divided because players automate their game with mods, don't disclaim it and compete with players that like to compete solving these "artificial problems" better than their enemy. See other threads like: It's also not just that the problems just gets removed, they get removed in a way that no human player can. So besides that they have to deal with less, they have a benefit.

Tbh. I didn't fully understand what each is doing here. But as I understand it, the pro of small batch is the units can get faster to work, the pro of higher batch sizes is the total train time decreases. In this simulation a unit with total cost of 100 gets produced, gathers with 0.75 without ways to drop of, at different batch sizes from one cc. To account for the ways one could reduce the gather rate. I wouldn't take any practical advice from this. Just spectate some games with good eco scores. This leaves out the timings of the next barracks which costs again. batch.py

Here is what the LLM ended up with, take it with caution, but to me it seems kind of plausible. Some approximations have been made. One builder just build sequential houses, corrals or fields. Usually its more. The walking distances are neglected. Targeted are ~38.9 f/s. All resources are just pooled together. Realistically its also a big factor that one gathers wood and get food at the fields, while at the corrals you don't have so much food to invest at the start, except if you start out with elephants (or other plenty of fauna) nearby. The one big benefit with the corrals is that you need a lot less pop. Also this pop is way better as it can be used to attack. farms_vs_corrals.py

Why though? It would be 2 developers working against each other. First develops a game mechanic where each farmer has x0.9 of the efficiency of the former. Second just optimize the effect automatically to a minimum making it meaningless for the player. If you like to plan less for your setup, why don't you just suggest to remove the feature that's also not full documented with the numbers? I'd just keep it as it is, but it should be documented with the numbers clearer.

Yeah, if I have some time, I could update it or anyone with the script and a LLM. Just describe the stats in full detail. But to me this seem to be too obvious to put in that effort of typing the stats and debug it. First comes the berrys, then hunt/fish, then transition to fields. Corrals with slaughtering seems not to be the meta atm.. In earlier alphas I liked to have corrals, a temple nearby, wounded cav could work and heal by aura. But it was never a question of either farm + upgrades or corrals. Farms are a must. ... (well one exception was survival of the fittest were there were once no farms, but corrals)

Map: Mainland Players Involved: ffm (Germans), JulioC23 (Macedonian) Description: After capturing an enemy cc (belonging to JulioC23), I trained units and attempted to set the CC waypoint first to ground, then to the cc, so newly trained units would garrison. Despite multiple attempts changing the waypoint to different spots on the ground in front of the CC, on the CC’s corner, and beside it, units spawned outside, did not garrison, and were killed by a nearby enemy tower (still owned by JulioC23). Attempts to reproduce: Replicated the situation in a new game with unassigned players on Mainland, but the issue did not occur. The original game was saved and rehosted, so no working replay is available. Note: If someone is interested, it might be possible to combine the two replays by adjusting turn numbers to investigate further. This is at least a report for awareness; perhaps others can upload if they encounter the same issue commands1.txt commands2.txt

The connection issues I was talking about should happen in the first 4 min. and I'd expect if 2 players recognize this to just abort the game on equal terms. More frustrating its at >8 min. I also like the way lichess handles it. Its server hosted, but apart from that, if one player disconnects, a timer counts down "1:30" and if its run out, the remaining player has the option to claim a victory or draw. He also has the normal resignation option. For 0 A.D. if one player drops, and the remaining player is fair, I'd like some options, like claim victory, resign, abort (draw), spoil scores for a better decision or choose decide by score (blind without knowledge of it).

I set up another game where it was 11 relics: commands.txt

I was late joining as spectator in a ffa hellas game. Not all 15 relics were shown in the bar on the top, only 12: I don't have the full replay file, since I joined late.

Maybe in theory, but I can tell from experience: There are some hosts which I usually can't join at all. Sometimes it works a bit and some minutes later i drop again. Like jagsusindia and CIA. I regularly see 7 players at a host of CIA, try to join but can't. I can play with the other players fine and they can play with CIA. I can also be in a game with CIA by a different hosts.