alre

can you point us the review process you are talking about, the work done, or at least the language?

@hyperion, @LetswaveaBook, wow, your opinons look pretty extreme to me. I'd say it's cool that not all games must finish in age 3, but it's also cool that one can go to phase 3 just by booming, before the deciding part of the game even starts. that has to be allowed, and many players would go for it anyway.

not quite. you can take radical economic choices with ProGUI activated, and feel more confident about them because of the mod; you can and you would very often turn off the auto-production, to then turn it on again. not every game is the same in any ways more than with vanilla. it's a bit like when autociv's autoqueue was out (and now it's in the game), except ProGUI is more helpful.

for you.

not. AI does not work on saved games unfortunately. it would be very cool if it was possible to play saved games multiplayer.

Still, that would be a change inconsequential in everyone's practice.

if the map depicts a H-shaped terrain with square seas, I'd argue that it shouldn't be called Corinthian Isthmus whatever the biome. Isthmus is fine, it's not boring (then why would you think a better name should make a map look better, if it's only loosely related to it?).

you can use different ad-hoc mods for those tests, like valirhant did with territory mod. and then merge the feature into community mod.

shouldn't balancing rather go on with the community mod? A lot of development can be made trough that project.

you can also set it in the gui.

yes but you need a mod (could be autociv, I don't remember)

Personally I would make capturing unaffected by garrison. Garrisoning is currently op and quite micro-heavy. Then again, A27 will be yet another thing: capturing will be buffed and less encouraged at the same time, but what can you say, devs will be devs.

there still will be fun in finding new tactics and micro techniques, just not this one.

11. in maps with long and complex unpassable obstacles, the AI starts acting weirdly, only considering euclidean distance for espansions and attacks. I think this is the kind of things you may want the easy AI to do anyway. if it acts dumb it makes you feel smarter. there have been some work on better AI in the past, which was never merged into the main game, @Yekaterina knows more. Catilina was pretty good I remember.

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.