alre

there are AIs ment to help developers coding, but they are only far relatives to chatgpt. besides, coding is not a "translation" of human language into machine language, code has a rigour that natural languages lack, and if you can't code some feature, chances are you can't express what you want from that feature in natural language either. the only thing LLMs can do, and IMO will always be able to do, is to give very generic indications, or creating very generic pieces of content, that you can either spam as they are or use as a stub for later rework. this applies to code as well as to other text. models that generate images are somehow different because pictures are fuzzier and AI works better there, the hand of a painter is not as precise as the pen of a writer or the hands of a programmer.

I think he meant the bottom-leftspace, which is left for chat, that doesn't apply to single-player.

not really, no.

for any nomadic civ, territory should be either not present or somehow secondary, I'm hoping for a civ that actually plays nomadic. I agree that packing/unpacking shouldn't be abused, and pure mobility could be used instead for a lot of units (that would be buildings in other civs, houses maybe).

give me a nomadic civ and I'm happy with that, I ask nothing more.

maybe they wouldn't have been so effective if he had known how effective they could be and he had taken counter action? just an idea - micro play can be pretty effective against splash damage in general.

start by making a simple attempt. then show what you have done and collect feedback. yeah, I don't see a better alternative. However, if you want to give visibility to your work, simply posting what you have written here seems best to me.

Any automatic matchmaking should avoid matching players with strong differences in rating. Also, new players should be matched against new players when possible. By the way, there is a flaw, I believe, in the way the current rating algorithm computes the updates to the ratings of players losing or winning against new players. The fact that that player is new is not taken into consideration (compare this to how the new player rating receives stronger updates instead). The opponent to the new player should receive finer updates, because the new player true ability is not known.

it's pretty much the same thing, because there's a lot of people trying out the game, but not as many that stick. I'm sure a single player campaign would also show in the players number.

Do you know "player retention"? Considering how huge is the number of daily downloads, one could say you are doing right by keeping the game installer online and giving it visibility.

automatic 1v1 matchmaking would very interesting I think. If implemented, it has the potential to significantly increase the player base. if that would also increase the development contributions, I'm not sure. of course one has to remember that this general vision of 0ad as a game to be brought trough the phases of development until it's a beta and then something resembling a full game, is not actually shared by all the people that form the development team of the game, and it's usually given for granted somehow naively here in the forums.

AFAIK, the encyclopedia is already working code-wise, but was disabled as they found it was too much of a burden to maintain the (multi-language) entries. the thing with FOSS is that if there is a community devoted to maintain some feature, the feature will stay part of the project, otherwise it will be dropped.

I don't. if it was for me, wood gathering upgrade would only cost wood. it's meant to be a long term investment, not convenient in the immediate future. it's not and it shouldn't be something you go for for immediate relief when you are lacking resources.

it can't be done trough mods, because it's implemented trough c++. there is a configuration file but the options are limited (it's better understood if you try changing it yourself anyway). if you search the forum I've posted quite a lot about this issue.

cool idea, sounds like fun, but I don't know how many teams we could make. also smurf tampering would possibly be an issue.

whose responsibility is it? not starting flames or spreading toxicity is something expexted from all lobby participants. anyway, mine was just a suggestion, I'm not saying you crossed any line.

if someone appeals the rule that forbids second accounts, they cannot be said to be wrong, just because that rule is not sanctioned. I'ts a rule we all agree to every time we join the lobby. Also if a host doesn't want to play some other accounts, they can refuse to play that other accounts. No one is forced to. By the line of reasoning of @borg-, it's totally right to refuse to play Felixix, and the line of reasoning of Borg is totally legit. I wouldn't assume that Berhudar is the "real" one though, I would just ask to play with the higher rated account, or unrated.

maybe next time be nicer, like "welcome berhudar, I'd like to game your main account, will you change it? I'm waiting here". Am I being too weird?

@Sun Wukong you can play steppe biome on mainland, and it's like what you are asking. unfortunately, most maps are not really maintained as much as mainland is.

game/map reset is annoying as f.

currently the worst "bottleneck" for 0ad is the first impression with the game itself, I remember some data that showed that a huge share of players never go past the first try of the game. It mostly need a good introductory campaign and some more user-friendly content in general, and the community could go 10x like nothing.

mmh not really, the roman faction shown above goes in the list of medioeval AoE2 factions, while what you seem to be referring to (AoE1 time period) is represented by a separate list of factions.

mmmh onestly the rules of the original challenge made a lot more sense I think (also there were some players who decided to not use additional food, which also makes sense). If you are going to boom to 200 pop you should also get the hero and the upgrades, and have a varied army composition.

the main issue whith multimodal gameplay is that it lacks features and balance testing. wonders work like ordinary buildings (which also give substantial perks and are easily defensible) instead of being properly balanced winning conditions like in AOE (where wonders are also automatically revealed to every player, which is nice). kings for regicide are also obviously unbalanced, and all the talk about sacred places victory never had any real follow up. for the time being, conquest can stay the default winning condition. toxicity caused by players hiding to keep the game running is not an issue currently.

mmmh there have been a lot of cases of destruction of whole cities and mass murder in ancient wars, especially preclassic, but also later. Right now wonders are more like very expensive buildings like any other in 0ad than balanced winning conditions, so, unless that changes I don't think it's a good idea to change default winning conditions. By the way, I've looked up the red cross page and it seems to me more like a PR stunt for "showing that wars have rules too" than actually a campaign against violence of any kind in video games. Also it's only targeted towards FPS games, and arguably any game set in a time where war crimes didn't exist as a concept it's out of scope for that initiative.