alre

done. logs.zip

yesterday I was hosting a game, when, not long before action would start, all players started to lose connection, and I read a strange error message that said that I couldn't connect to the host (I was hosting). the game said that I had lost connection to the server, and I also couldn't log to the lobby. Actually, I also lost internet connection for a while, which seems to be the obvious culprit. Anyway, today I was playing in a game @Talenters was hosting, when the same thing happened. Talenters however, did not lose internet connection and was still in the lobby. Noone could rejoin the game though, and my 0AD even crashed while trying. Why would the game say to the host that he lost connection to the server? the forum won't let me upload the html log files. crashlog.dmp crashlog.txt crashlog.dmp crashlog.txt crashlog.dmp crashlog.txt

I agree the lobby is indeed chaotic. we are come to the point that I feel there are more smurfs than new players. no wonder hosts only accept known players. By the way cav rushes were already powerful in A23 and we didn't have all these smurfs. rushes don't make smurfing anyway necessary, pretending to be worse than you are so you can boom more safely is simply not honest. and I still don't get why you created the smurf account with 8 wins straight. was that just to make a point or was that for fun too?

wherever there is communication and social relations, there will be conflict. everything the game allows can be considered fair by some players, and unfair by others, especially if playing against someone they know already. you do not solve the grand problem of human conflict. wouldn't be even greater if there wasn't any civ with one and only OP strategy that everyone picking that civ was obviously going for?

whith this example, @Reyhan, you showed perfectly why it's not fun to have nubs on your team, and why many hosts only accept players of their level. even teams means more fun. also, if this bullying is an effective strategy, than I don't think it can be blamed. it's a coordinated assault, and it makes a lot of sense in TGs. All in all, I'd say you are painting things a lot darker than they are, and many of these issues are simply caused by 0AD having a small playerbase, and it having a public lobby, with a public chat. there's good to it, and bad. of course it is true that smurf accounts should be limited somehow, and that TG should have a rating system, both these things have quite some consensus. (but TG rating should not consider in game scores though, this too has been discussed). I also think that if the game also had a quick matchup system for 1v1, this would make matters simpler, and be more inviting to many new players.

I heard that too. they call them laundries.

I think soft battalions are a kind of overlapping in function with control groups. what battalions do, however, control groups do better. Anyway, I don't think roman checkered battle line is recommendable in any game really, not even total war.

I agree attacking fields is stupid, bu do we want units to not try conquering by default?

nice. is it just for 1v1?

gameplay-wise, camels are actually the exact same as horses.

not on this game. but there is the range advantage, which is relevant.

skirms OP and pikes OP are linked. if skirmishers didn't deal that exaggerated amount of damage (compared to melee), pikes resistance wouldn't be so relevant. archers should be faster, they have no use anymore because people hated them so much in A24 they were nerfed to the ground. it really makes no sense to have them slower than all other ranged units, it means they have no strengths.

0AD gameplay is not that geared around counters, but anyway, this is my input based on tactical use more than on simple performance: - swordsmen are better than spears against other infantry, but you better have spears or pikes if you fear a cavalry attack. - in almost all cases, pikemen are the best melee infantry, because they soak damage better than the others, and in infantry clashes most damage is dealt by ranged troops. - skirmishers are OP, they are not really countered by other infantry at all, since they are also faster and can get away anyway, if not reach and chase any footed enemy. - horse archers are little good in general, but are a fine counter to skirmisher heavy armies. 10-20 horse archers can cause many casualties while harassing such targets. - archers are basically crap. they have very little use, but they can lure shorter range enemies from afar. in some limited situations that can be quite useful. - jav cav is very strong, it is countered by spear cav, but still very capable of winning agaist it. best counter to them is some number of slingers, protected by other infantry. - by the same logic, it makes sense to say that spear cav is best countered by spearmen and pikemen. - I'm not sure of which cav counters horse archers best, it's usually quite easy to retreat them to safety if chased (if you pay attention, horse archers require much attention, it's their main drawback).

ctrl + right clic. that may avoid unnecessary chasing, but we were talking about units taking an order wrong: they just move instead of attack moving.

That was a great game, I had a lot of fun (you could tell from the summary already)!

in 0AD there is no single unit that walks at 7 m/s. overwriting that default value is very simple and I would recommend - for easier balancing - fully specifying all units statistics in your template tree, without relying on any default whatsoever. That's what we do anyway. I wouldn't even know if that 7 value is actually the default, @Stan` said here that is only used for generating the example template. You are missing a lot, and you think it's our fault. It's not, take some time to understand the game better, and its balance, or feel free to make your own mod and see how that plays.

the unrealistic scale of units and speed is nowere coded in the game engine. You can make a mod like that defining a whole new set of unit templates and models, that have realistic values and whatsoever. 0AD will keep having its absurd scale, because it works perfectly fine for us.

I just don't think this needs changing. buffing fertility fest a bit would be more than enough, booming doesn't need to be better than that, raiding doesn't need to be easier than it already is.

agree, also I'd add that I never understood why women and inf have such a bad rate of gathering meat compared to cav. ok cav moves faster, but does it also have to butcher faster? 5/10 times so? why?

I think it should noted that in early game (minutes 0-3) this rock-paper-scissor mechanic exists in 0AD. one can go for naked booming (quite common), immediate/early cavalry rush with about 4 horses immediately, and even more after one/two minutes (more convenient if hunt is present around base), or print some extra infantry at the beginning to protect himself from rushes (especially convenient for slinger civs). Rush wins against boom, boom wins against defense, defense wins against rush. It is in middle game (minute 5 onward) that naked boom is no longer a sensible option, but just because fertility fest is out of balance in this release, that would keep booming with women viable. As for A25 balance, after minute 4/5, raiding can't be your main strategy anymore, you need to settle on either infantry boom or a more committed aggression, be it with cav, infantry, cs or mercs. This is no more a rock-paper-scissor situation, but a two way balance, even if a lot more can be said about different civs and particular strategies - I'm simplifying. To be honest, I'm not a fan of boom-rush-defense balance: it can be very fun to rush a defenseless player, but it is quite frustrating to get rushed when you are defenseless, or fall behind because you picked the wrong strategy compared to your opponent. Scouting could help giving you a clue of what the other player is gonna do, but at the beginning of the game scouting comes at a high cost, so, all in all, a player can be rewarded for essentially being lucky about some risky choice. This is just my opinion, and I can see why others may disagree. I hope that some player better than me, or more used to play 1v1, shares his/her opinion about this.

now I'm confused, who is it that have fire resistance?

How? You can barely notice it happens by digging into the statistics, and those are not even complete, because units and buildings have fire resistance, which is hidden and there is no way to tell how good it is. Besides, this mechanic gives to an arbitrary unit, alone in the game, as it was the only one in history to use fire, the ability to do considerable damage to any other unit and building, without exception (that I know of) or defense. How is all this fun?

I'm confused now. Seriously though, why did you buy the game if you were clearly so unhappy of the news about it?

there is not. and even if there is, it's irrelevant.

I must insist that meters and seconds have no real meaning in the game settings. All soldiers models are about 4m tall. Also speed is clearly not meant to be realistic, starting from training and building times, to walk speed and attack times. It's all about making the game play in the desired way.