alre

hoarding res is actually considered a sign of bad eco. I can understand the appeal of such line of reasoning for anyone who wishes to change the game without having to actually understand it first. everything you are saying about RTS has been written in this same forum dozens of time already. so much for thinking outside the box.

no reason to wait, test it already. you can use a26, or you can use the release candidate. whit who would you test it?

agree. there is indeed some work being done in that regard, and improving variety of the game is one of the goals. right now - I'm not sure why - not much is moving, but you can partecipate to the testing and general work ig you want. what's your level (lobby ranking)? I reccomend you to take a look at how this thread and its history:

if you reward players that do something different from current meta, you are just changing a build order with another. creating a variety of strategies takes a bit more than that. all the techs that improve gathering of any resource.

I'm convinced that a better system would not prevent discussions at all. Also I think that a TG rating system would be relatively easy to implement and potentially very useful. Actually, 1v1 rating can be improved as well at little cost. What I don't know is who and how is managing the rating bot. what would it take to have a pr accepted?

the AI difficulty parameter does exactly that.

I agree the game would look more realistic if fortresses were not miniature versions of weirdly square strongholds that throw showers of arrows at a large range, but were instead larger concentric defenses, including patrols, palisades and killzones, then finally a fortified position on a pre-existing hill, where the garrison retreats when the threat is nearest. But that would be hella complicate to realize and a miniature version of a conventionally shaped stronghold does the job of representing map control and also looks cuter in the process.

you should try a solution before dismissing it. yes, sure.

there is certainly an improvement imo. just dropping some observations: - moving the islands towards the edge of the map is a good idea as it saves space. was the new algorithm tested for all possible combinations of n. of players and maps sizes? - I'm not sure I like that the islands are on opposite sides of the continent in 1v1 or low player count, but actually I don't much play those settings. - maybe biomes should make more sense for the map geography? I think it's a bit weird to have savanna biome on a map with that kind of shape

you can give wildlife to an extra player not assigned to any AI (sandbox).

you can decide the order of mods directly in mod selection menu in the game. there are arrows on the right bottom that let you move a mod up and down the order. but files from the later mods will replace completely those of the mods before anyway, if they overlap, you understood that part correctly.

true. a bit cynical actually, but true.

lol this is so biased it's funny.

- the game engine doesn't support more than 8 players - the game engine doesn't support spherical maps - the game doesn't support server side mods

realistically speaking, a ship could carry maybe one ram, but that wouldn't be mobile and should be used from the ship itself, as in some historical accounts. Rams were built on location, not transported over sea. I hope there will be important changes with how siege works in 0ad, there has been a lot of talk about this over the years. Things will also changes with the melee rebalance soon to be tested at wide. But until next and future patching initiatives, rams are currently pretty balanced in a competitive setting.

just use autociv's active pause.

this is really funny and relevant.

Han units speak greek, that's really comical.

this is a question of organization of the game development and it's not a simple subject, ideally you a right, but suffice it to say that the main releases of the games are actually on a halt right now. well, in AoE there is no harm to use your soldiers in any other way than let them kill themselves, in 0AD you want them to do eco rather than chase enemies they can't catch. By simply having them distracted, you are lagging behind in economy.

try BoonGui mod, it enlarges the minimap and changes players colors. these games are very different in the way eco is managed by units that are also fighters.

I play for fun, I like competing once in a while and I can play fair: I played without the mod for the tournament event if it wasn't required (contrary to what I had thought). What I'm saying is: think what you want to think, but I've been using progui since soon after it was out, and I'm not a cheater.

they don't if they are on passive stance. I think that would be bad and potentially exploitable by your enemy, think about how archer cav would be a lot more effective at disrupting eco. It's almost always better to delay the fight as much as possible.

I'm not considering units standing around simply because units shouldn't generally stand around, but in fact, whenever I've left some unit standing as a sentinel, I put him on passive.

fleeing to a safe building would be even better, yes. I have suggested creating a command maybe called "find shelter" that makes the selection run to the nearest building that can host them, I hadn't thought about making it automatic with a stance though. Excluding this option (I'm not creating it) I'd be happy if units were passive by default, and switched automatically to aggressive when first given a command for attacking. Maybe this mod I can create.

that isn't necessarily better than doing nothing. It could lead to mass suicide. Fleeing looks like a much better default to me. In the end the player needs to handle it anyway.