vinme

dont remember a game in which you made palasides vs me.(not saying it didnt happen im sure it did) either way i think palasides are fine, yes swordcav are op but thats separate topic. palasides are really cheap, 14 cav is 2100 res +stable, ect unless mercs which is a civs specialty so it being op is fine(altho i think mercs rly op a25). so 100-250 wood palasides that are instant to build couldnt stop 2100 + 300 + buildtime+ tranitme alone? seems fine to me, only mele can effectively get thru palasides at such speed because of low hack armor from what i recall. have some men around to chase the cav away from palasides is the best solution i can think of. use palasides as buffer, ez to repair too im sure if he retreats. usually when you have men in minerals its not nearly enough time to send them to help farms especially if farms around farmstead so the palasides should give a good amount of several sec, worst case he kills palaside, runs away, you repair hole in 5 sec with 3 men or something and 10 wood. to end this spear cav are horrible terrible unusable barely viable vs other cav even with 1.75X .

i believe in you @KerlMarx ! if you can ride a horse in water while wearing no shirt im sure you can be best 0ad player this is just basic maths.

update: few more ddoses. whats interesting is hamdichs host was getting ddosed, he didnt go down so then i started getting ddosed(not host, player) so because he didnt go donw to stop ppl from playing it started ddosing me as well. also if you dont rejoin game, you dont get ddosed but if you do rejoin then ddos continues.

Rly nice game with multiple twists one usually doesnt see in 0ad games. metadata.json commands.txt

got ddosed 2 min after getting into an argument with a player wang_wei he was certain i couldnt 2v1 2 1300s. anyway he called me a retard or something , said rly stupid stuff with full confidence i banned him and started 2v1 game with remainging 2 players. got ddosed within 2min, internt off ect.

good point with difusion reducing alt acc motivation.

ty @mblazev updated

feel there are more players around recently, could be wrong. maybe last time i just jused to log on during wrong time brackets as theres like a 6 hour window of high activity usually (60-70% of all activity) and a 3 hour drop off front and back that makes up like 20% so you get like 10% of all activity only in 12 hours. still tho feel free to join guys once we reach like 35-40 ppl should be feasible to regularly find games on our discord.

it does mean their skill decreases on average since people stop playing rateds as they are generally incapable of performing on a proper level and would prefer to keep their rating where it is over adjusting it down to a more relaisitc level. uncertainty brings in new variables and overcomplicates what otherwise can be a simple and reasonable system i thin its unfair to remove lets say feldfeld from the leaderboard simply because he doesnt play much i suggest an initially low reduction of rating followed by a high reduction of rating followed by a low reduciton of rating again. so like a bellcurve of rating reduction where one cannot be reduced an x amount more than the initial rating. so lets say 450 total rating reduction seems reasonable. first 4 months total reduced by 50 next 4 months total reduced by 100 more next 4 months by 150 next 4 months by 100 next 4 months by 50 and then no more reduction.first 4 months only a reduction of 50 but the first year a reasonable reduction of 300, in a year and 8 months its 450.

if it was upto me id even make it not top 100 but top 1000 so players ratings could be more easily found, the point of it is for people to clearly see the rankings so i dont get how you didnt see that and had to look for "gratification" angle which idk what that even means like feeling accomplished to be top rated? Wouldnt it make more sense to feel accomplished to be top skill wise(which correlates near absolutely at least in top 20 with rating).we top 20 active players all know eachother more or less and rating does reflect on our skill quite accurately, if there wasnt a leaderboard newly improving players may have trouble finding challenging opponents, ect so rating is very valuable in keeping things efficient, organized. if someones rating drops/rises one can extrapolate their skill from that obviously ect. the "gratification" was never the point any more than actually wanting to surpass others in a sporting sense since rating means nothing if it doesnt represent skill accurately.

father is notorious fake low rated guy who somehow managed to i assume purpousefully stay low rated for a long time. im guessing hes around 1400-1500 but idk who 1770 guy was that he beat. team rating seems problematic and ive heard talks about it for years but since tgs are so random shouldnt be a simple goal.

I think the gratification angle is a terrible idea and should be ignored and disregarded entirely. As for inactive players retaining skill if this were so i wouldnt be making this thread i can assure you that on higher levels (at least 1800+ for sure) theres a significant difference between a 1900 who plays a lot and a 1900 who just came back(maybe like 125 rating difference if i were to guess). And sure some retain more skill, some retain less but since we can not predict that we must treat them all equally. Not saying nessesarily 6 months only since there are many, many players who havent played a rated game in over a year or years! i dont remember last time chrstgr played a rated game, there are ppl on leaderboard i havent seen in lobby in my life like the legendary defenderbenny. Also raffut for example who literally came out of nowhere and had 1800 rating from the start (pretty certain fake via rating farm via other acc creation).

we just reached 20 verified members. im starting a new thread because the other one really got out of hand and got sidetracked to an amazing extent about some seemingly unrelated subjects. invite link: https://discord.gg/XkrQdJj7eR

this seems reasonable so rest of us can more clearly see our level on the leaderboard. started this thread because like half the people above me dont play anymore or dont play rated anymore. maybe there should be a quota of X amount of games per month that a player must play rated or otherwise remove "y" amount of rank.

still isnt it insane and literally unbelievable that often theres literally 10 ppl in lobby and generally like 40? something along thoes lines sometimes going upto 100 while htere are literally over half a million downloads?

never doubted that download counts were fake. i believe the stats but seems suspicious af to me. so theres already feedback element? NICE! should be really easy to add a player survey element to it.

300k?600k? really? no way. that is literally impossible that only 1/3000th of players(lets say every other guy who gets it doenst play) plays multiplayer regularly more or less. are you guys getting ddosed via download requests? it would be quite enlightening to everyone if in a25 there was a "survey" element installed in menu asking players to take a voluntary survey so that would make things clear. didnt mean that single player players dont matter because theres a few of them btw i mean that single player isnt really all that demanding on precise balance so they can be ignored in terms of "turn speed" or whatever else. cant believe that players of verified rating didnt grasp the concept of not making camels more op in a24 XD. idk what rating limitation should be but i think given such few players are on the higher level such as only 10 or so are 1900+ and that rating doenst directly translate into game understanding any more than being a strongman makes one a human anatomy expert this leads me to think that it shouldnt be too strict. also like 10% at best from the total pool will wanna participate most likely altho higher level players who are most active are more likely to i mean in general. so in general more competent enough ppl you have that their input and interference wont be counterproductive the better. (1500-1600)+ lets say seems fair given there are like 100 people 1600+ and far far more 1500+ but letting rly low rated players balance seems pointless if they dont even intuitively understand the general mechanic of the game as a whole as well as individual factors.

thoughts on the dancing fix while retaining retreat and micro capabilities via proportional changes to turn speed in relation to move speed? thereby cav having slower turn speed/direction change speed than lets say javelineers ect. pikes having the fastest turn speed. im kind of scared btw reading this thread about how ill be amazed at the atrocities in a25 XD hope im proven wrong. how many ppl even play single player? is there a point to focusing on them? single player shouldnt really matter all that much in terms of balancing even if things are like 20% off who cares playing vs an ai. perhaps there should be a min skill level for balancing advisors? just a thought

i dont think micro should be more relevant than macro in 0ad players skill level and in a23 it was widely considered that micro > macro

i think current unit turn speed is really low and provides less dynamic gameplay mainly because of the lessened optimality of retreating but also because of general difficulty manuvering units via micro. still i think its no worse than the issue on the other end of the extreme taht we had before where dance was feasible and the factor of micro was insanely significant in defnining the totality of a players skill level. i think it would be best to have a turn speed somewhere between the current one and the previous one. perhaps a turn speed that is in some way correlated with move speed with higher move speed warranting slower turn rate so one cant dance with cavalry. i dont know what the multiplier for this would be though.

Just reached 10 verified users on the discord ayy currently no silver/gold players sadly :/

the use of the discord is to interact with people who arent currently online in 0ad lobby ofc you can go to 0ad lobby but if lets say no1 is online, you had bad timing and you couldnt find decent 1v1s in a few days(happens to me often) you can go check discord and since many ppl have discord open on the background or because they engage in other servers theyll see your request for 1v1. even if you cannot immediately arrange the game because of people being buisy you can still then arrange a time when you can go online together and play. for such organizational things discord can be helpful since not many ppl except @Dunedan have 0ad open 24/7 by default. even if no1 is online on discord you can still ping them or simply state in #1v1-matchmaking or #tg-matchmaking that you want to arrange a game and eventually som1 will respond. as you see there are countless advantages to a matchmaking discord server. btw ty @Stan` for commenting on here now more ppl saw the thread and more ppl r joining the server as for diamond i hope to see ppl come and destroy vali borg and feld(currently mia) and then ppl who are even better to come and destroy the diamond altho idk what one would call something above diamond.. emerald?

yeah i forget about the city building ppl and singleplayer ppl of 0ad since im purely on compettetive side. i have no idea what the proportions are of compettetive players / recreational players

what does RC mean? yeah no idea why ppl stopped playing im guessing the game changed too much so the old specialization went down the drain,faimilar got messed up with archers being even more op now than they were weak before. im sure you know the countless issues that A24 brought. i see many many improvements and good changes as well but i guess it got overdone by the issues(balance mainly the way i see it). id say the main issue (like 90% of the problem) has always been balance of units,civs and one would think thats the easiest thing to fix since one just has to tweak attack=5.5 to attack=7 for example or other variables in game code. is it possible to do like update patches for 0ad without new alphas coming out so when theres a rly rly big fucup like there are many every time it can get patched in 2min of a single person changing variables and uploading the patch ppl can download instead of it persisting and eroding game popularity for months or years. no point inventing new civs and spending months or years developing it if 1/3 or more are near unplayable and like 3 are too op for any civ to deal with on even terms.