sil-vous-plait

Ah of course, thank you! Sorry I thought this was some bespoke thing (after I went searching for experiences with "M1" on the forums).

Hi @Stan, does a similar thing exist for A26?

cheers team, problem solved

there was no muting/kicking for this, 15 mins later but I got muted for saying "sh*t" within seconds... how again is this not broken?

but hey, at least no one can say "sh*t" in the lobby....

it appears to me online "competitive" players always jump on whatever bandwagon emerges from minuscule unbalanced advantages across versions (i.e. sling/ram in a23, archers in a24, what appears to be merc cav in a25), so maybe it's overstated how homogenous things need to be...there will always be some lever to manipulate, so to speak

(might be too obscure, or just particular to my ocd...)

congrats!!! looks incredible

ah okay, that makes sense! yeah: it caught my attention especially when spectating a match and each civ started with a different number (7-10 mostly)

what does the "Tec" column represent on the in-game stats display?

...and that's the last time I'll spell out how to improve (at worst) and fix (at best) the online multiplayer experience of your game.

This is such a failed metaphor: if there was an entity responsible for constructing a building explicitly for public/community use (consisting of planning, permission, actual builders, plumbers, electricity, etc.) and the principal entrance had a security or accessibility flaw, I would take it up with the entity, yes. I wouldn't go to the plumber, no, but the entity as a whole. If they only had plumbers on their team while supplying electricity to the building I would consider that a reflection on them. Now imagine the entity saying "Well we don't have anyone who figures out security or accessible access, don't look at us! If you think it's a problem either come fix it yourself or build your own building!" If anything—if I were to subscribe to your metaphor—you're just making the case + further solidifying the fact that there needs to be more moderators (electricians, as you would say) and/or some kind of better system put in place—as detailed extensively above. There are two things happening: one is whether or not you think it's an issue that needs solving—which I have yet to see explicitly stated by anyone, if anything the opposite—and another is (and the transparency is appreciated) whether or not it is feasible for the team to do.

fair enough, I guess I'm just surprised something like preventing obvious racial slurs in usernames would have been a little higher on the list than *checks notes* naturally realistic sounds of animals dying when they're hunted, or, modeling/skinning the historically accurate dress of the Gauls TLDR: whatever, I don't care that much (it's not my game) and I tried. I'm happy to ignore it, always have (lol what other choice is there?), just a shame how it reflects on the game and community. at least this will serve as a record when (hopefully) the game gains some more popularity/users and it doesn't benefit from the luxury of inaction (re: this topic) and large indifference at this point to be clear I'm focusing on usernames, as I understand why monitoring the lobby chat is another (slightly) more complex task. however seeing the response/rant of some user(s) above who are officially on the 0AD team makes it very clear why this isn't addressed—so again, whatever

too busy to prevent the use of racial slurs in usernames, ok gotcha

at the end of the day my question is still: is this not a concern of WFG? if so what plans are there to address it? I do agree with what's said via mods etc etc but it still strikes me as odd that this is getting treated as something extra, as if it's not a foundational concern of the game/multiplayer experience