ffm2

I'm a bit neutral regarding the feature. It over complicates things, although it gets rid of the click-spam-sniping. I'd rather have a balance where it makes more sense to kill the melee units first rather than attacking the archers behind them. I like the other sniping actions as they are (hero including the luring part, cavalry in groups etc.) that don't involve click spam. But the balance will perpetually change with each version.

Marian Reforms (roman_reforms) with 11% of roman players researching this tech are a trap (most of the time). Skrimisher cost 50 f 50 w have a gather rate 0.5 berry 0.25 grain 1 meat 0.75 wood 0.5 stone 0.5 metal after Marian Reforms the skirm costs 50f 50w 15m and the gather rates are 0.24 berry 0.12 grain 0.49 meat 0.37 wood 0.24 stone 0.24 metal A woman has gather rates 1 berry 0.5 grain 1 meat 0.7 wood 0.35 stone 0.35 metal Marian reforms are only useful if A) You are about to deal the finishing blow B) Your economy can rely completely on trade Because you men now costs metal but can gather it less efficient than woman (and woman gather it very bad in comparison to normal men already) No other upgrade is considered here.

You should definitely use your CC and not let it idle. It is 30 s for one woman per house. So if you could get 30 woman in 30 s thats where it helps. There are some conditions though that need to fit as well, like having food (or getting it from mates). Or when you received a real heavy blow and need to start a new cc in min 20.

I agree. unlock_females (Fertility Festival) works correctly imo. It costs 400 res (expensive). When you develop and you'd could afford it you are almost at pop max and want more fighting men. If you are at pop max. you'd delete some woman to make room anyway. It's useful to boost eco after a heavy blow and you can ensure the safety of the woman for a while.

(Han) civil_service_01: Ministers -50% training time; civil_service_02: Ministers +50% Health; both 0%. Because ministers themself are useless and only harmful as they take up population and serve little purpose. Units gather 2% more in the 40 m radius. If you constantly have 50 units in that radius the minister would help just as much as a regular unit.

It is data from A27 and was indeed a typo. Thanks for figuring that out. Helot is only available for sparta (and 0% of the spartans did it). Costs 200 food, 200 wood. Infantry Javelineers +100% grain gather rate, but -10% ranged attack pierce damage. I see no value in this. I'd rather pay for the opposite if + and - where switched on both. I'd need to analyze naval a bit different but that would require more work. Most games are not naval games, I dislike naval so there's even fewer in my database. Naval techs should only be analyzed if a dock is build or so. The top techs might seem trivial to us but could serve for new players to focus on the most important techs. Some techs like outpost_vision are just too expensive (only 2% did it). I liked it in the past. But 300 food is just too much. You can have a additional barrack for 300 res. And if I had the choice mid game having rather 3 or 4 barracks or more vision on the outpost, I chose the additional barrack.

Here is the popularity of the technologies in my database. All data from A27 A24. The data is gathered from 369 games with 1436 players (not individuals [if a player is in 2 games its counted as 2 players]). From the 1436 players are the top 600 selected with the highest eco_score of spend resources by minute 13 selected and evaluated. So games in which the player booms and is likely left alone. The percentage shows how many of these players who can researched the technology actually researched the technology in that game. So if a tech is only available for han, and all the han players researched it, it would be 100%. This could be used to balance some techs. tech_stats.xlsx

I haven't noticed it either. There's a lot of OOS and stuttering so maybe I missed it but I can't remember this happening in A27.

I increased the number so all are evaluated, so the top 1288 of 1288 players:

Yes, of course. There is no weighting done. Just top 600. If the best player would be a fan of sparta because of the movie it would skew the data. Also the players that plays with me or avoid me would skew this. Another note: only A27 games are here

Yeah... I'm not a fan of the military score. It does not reflect 2v1 situations well. It would not be too hard to change the script, but this was just to sieve out some bad players and see which civs good players choose.

My metric to select the best boomers is "most spend res by min 13". My reasoning is: It can be measured good (opposed to rushing skills or time a certain pop is reached), is better (imo) than eco score (because of floating res.). The metric can be changed, but it should not be too far from the truth. Hope that answers it. Its a bit complicated

This information probably did not spread wide enough to influence the chart much, but it could be a idea to avoid the britons so one does not trigger the OOS https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/issues/7634 Has nothing to do with the strength of the civ though.

You are not alone with that opinion. Here is the evaluation of my database: Notes: Data from 337 games, 1288 total players (not individuals [if a player is in 2 games its counted as 2 players]) only a24

The host should be able to allow/disallow mods. This ticket was created in that direction https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/issues/7166 . Another reason to have this control as host is that during testing the rc's some members did not want to play without their mods and can't be reached by arguments. During the game OOS's occurred and everyone was blaming the mods. It should also be easier to share OOS logs by automating ziping a dated file from .config/logs/mainlog.html, oos_dump.txt and the replay file. It's a bit tedious to convince the players to go find the files and share them.

This is a performance improvement by removing a feature. Before one removes a feature one should consider what this feature is there for in the first place. The feature is there to detect OOS. OOS still occure even in vanilla but also when broken mods are used. This shows the necessity of this feature. Without this feature https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/issues/7634 would not have been caught.

Nice mod. A suggestion: In addition to the individual colors you could add one long string that contains all colors at the bottom that can be easy copy / pasted like: 255 255 200 249 249 199 .... So one can share their carefully crafted color scheme here. This would also drive user engagement. But what do you guys think? Leave a like and a comment down below.

the last one I saw on this was golden projectile. But I don't have a issue with bolt shooters. Catapults maybe sometimes when they shoot out of vision, but that's not something I want. So not from me at least.

A27 has more colors and some have problems. I changed some colors in a visibility mod. To me the red, green, blue are too neon. Good for competitive gaming for visibility, but not beautiful for me. I changed red to tab:red of matplotlib colors as I find the tableu palette more 'mature' (also for blue). The others are left because they aren't so bad for me to put in work. Next issue I have is with the dark-greed or camo-green as I call it. It has visibility problems and I changed it to salmon which fits all criterias I have for colors. For me the colors should be: (1) distinctive to each other (2) visible in the minimap (3) the font halo effect in the chat should work (4) visible in the summary graphs (5) be appealing / fit the world (3) does not work for dark blue as one can see here (and this is already increased by my 4k mod). One can barely make out the difference between a 'e' and a 'o'. (4) Can you make out the black graph here? Also there's a bug choosing the black color. Its chosen where the red arrow points to Another user also wished to change the colors in the config. A reason to allow this is for inclusion persons with colorblindness. A problem would arise for communication if a lot players call the colors differently. But it's minor as one can still just say the players name.

Local ratings mod tries to do this. See the current last posts there about my opinion on it though. I looked a bit how other games do it and currently I think the team elo system in this video makes more sense to me. How it really plays out needs to be tested ofc.. LR also tries to show the development of the player. When I look at my stats it shows no improvement. I rejoined after a long break and one would expect to start lower and improve when I get the timings better for the development of the civilization.

A quickload/save option for mapsettings would be nice. Most games are the 4v4 mainland with mapsize medium. But when you switch for a 1v1 you might forget to set the size to a smaller one. Or a popular mode is ambush with nomad and 4 min. of ceasefire, where the host might forget to enable ceasefire and the players decide to just continue and this results in chaos. If you can save e.g. 5 favorite types these mistakes can be prevented and some time can be saved during the setup.

My understanding is that farms are easier to setup, require less managing and the better choice for a boom (like the challenge here). Corrals require this food investment which throws food return a bit later. When pop max is reached one can gather with corrals the same amount of food with fewer population. Also you can keep your cavalry occupied while they are not raiding. If a temple is setup nearby they can also heal while gathering food. This is very good but requires a lot of management. Also if you transition from fields to corrals it should be done slowly gradually. Like this you don't have sudden high investment cost that would lack elsewhere in your development. For traders it is the same, if they make (i think) 30 per trip, they are more efficient than workers but should not be spammed in mass but gradually. But traders are weaker than normal units for gathering. The cavalery are stronger than the woman for food gathering.

I just had this recently somewhere between Christmas and now. Iirc the map was corithian_isthmus. My os is arch linux. Mods ffm_4k, ffm_visibility, autociv (with some adjustments). It could be that community-mod and feldmap were also on, but unsure. I remember in game was ffm (without rating) logged in, so I couldn't join. I then hosted a game, launched a second instance of 0ad and joined the lobby and could join the game. I searched my game records and didn't find this game (corinthian isthmus or a ffm without rating and multiplayer). This was the only time it happened to me since I play again. But it was a issue 4 years ago too. Edit: The replay was just on a different pc.

Don't try to learn to play with that AI. Your example showed how bad it is. Sometimes they are completely off; Yeah, it was phrased to generous of me. I meant there's bits of truth in it. Like garrisoning units can have effects on buildings (soldiers in towers, traders in merchant ships). But you'd be better off without this wrong information from the LLM about the healers.

A LLM doesn't understand the game. The answers are not very good but not completely off. A chess engine can play the game but can't tell you whats the reasoning. But it can tell you the 5 next best moves and what positions are better. See chess games between ChatGPT and stockfish in chess. ChatGPT just makes up moves that are against the rules. But when you ask it about openings it can tell you something about them on a certain level since there are a lot of texts about chess openings in the internet. In 0 a.d. there's game decisions that can be easily calculated. E.g. whether it makes economically more sense to do the farming upgrade or build one more farm. A "AI" makes no sense to use for this task. The direct calculation is more precise, fast and efficient. How many builders should build the first barrack and where is harder to answer. Building it with 2 builders is too slow. The investment cost of the barrack gives no benefit for too long. Building with 12 builders is too much as the efficiency per builder drops with each added builder. To do this optimal it makes sense to e.g. train a neuronal network. The problem with this atm. is that modders/users already enhance their game play by automating tasks better than humans can play the game. So this problem should be solved before each task can be optimized. And when each task is optimized it could be assembled to a engine for game play analysis or as a opponent.