Mastoras

Thank you @Sevda & @AIEND for this thoughtful doc. Partially I agree that 0ad is leaning a bit towards militaristic-aggressive play-style. @BreakfastBurrito_007 Male worker with higher gather rates for metal-stone and wood would be sick addition. I +1 this. Also something not mentioned in the Doc is the defensive "build". The current implementation of walls has made them completely useless. I think the the following changes will make it much more interesting: Units on Walls: - Make the resistance added to units on walls significantly higher, from +3 to +10 for example. (The extra points can be added as techs, maybe 2 techs) - Add a few points of crash damage on the arrows coming from walls, like +1 or +, this will help defending against rams a bit, so 1 ram alone can not take down a wall mounted with 30 soldiers. - Increase firing range by 10%. - As a tech firing arrows from walls have fire & deal fire damage. Other Wall Additions: - Make Stone walls available in phase P2, by P3 is already towards the end of the game to start building, too late too little. The above can make walls much more lucrative addition and counter either with massive sacrifice of ranged units or by siege. Update: Stone walls are already in P2, I didn't notice that, lol.

@ChronA I agree. My recommendation was more for something really simple/lean for very basic things that are very obvious. Of course if it time consuming to implement, it is not worth it. I was thinking even more simple, not even civ vs civ. Just gather the win rate for every civ. So we could have: civ1: 15% civ2: 13% etc.. I agree it could be totally useless information and highly depends on the amount of rated games we have in lobby, which I don't know how much, maybe 50? rated games/day, so like 4500 games per 3 months. So like ~700 games per civ/3 months, assuming equal preference, which would not be the case most probably. Yeah I get it very borderline, we are not big enough yet for this. Yeah, which brings us back to the topic of the thread. I agree we need to have at least 1 person or team who will be making the balancing proposals for every release. After discussions with the community, etc. Post 1 - Submission of Proposed Balancing Changes for next Release. (The Bill) - 1 Month deliberation on the thread. (Bill amendments) - Forum Post 2 - Poll on forum with amendments based on post 1. (Final Bill with amendments) - If Poll gets more than 50%+1 we move forward, otherwise we don't. Broadcast: - We could use SM indeed for this, actually would be very good marketing campaign as well. "Decide the fate of 0ad" kind of thing. But I believe the most important is we update the lobby message, this is where the active player base is.

That's awesomely quick response, I recompiled with the d4651 and my ram now is reported accurately

Setting smoothlos = "false" the match works. Is there a reason for double == or it was a typo?

@Stan` what lol i have 16gb. How can i fix that? is it auto generated?

Hello @vladislavbelov system_info.txt < Uncached, Cached, I don't have such a file. Just a note by no matter what I hit I mean the options the terminal gives me like, continue, debug, suppress exit. In terms of games it just gets "stuck" on the loading screen to 100%.

Yeah these are valid points. What about point 2? Analyzing the matches in the lobby, or matches based on data from replays.

Hello there, I am new to C++ so I might have set up something wrong. I am on an Intel mac (MacBook Pro (15-inch, 2018)) (macOS Monterey) I fetched 26886 and compiled successfully with some warnings. The game runs, however if i try to start a local game, this happens: ... ... ... GAME STARTED, ALL INIT COMPLETE ERROR: CFramebuffer object incomplete: 0x8CDD ERROR: CFramebuffer object incomplete: 0x8CDD ERROR: Failed to create LOS framebuffers Assertion failed: "framebuffer" Location: DeviceCommandContext.cpp:790 (SetFramebuffer) After that no matter what I hit, game crashes and i get segmentation fault. I see there were quite a few changes that happened on DeviceCommandContext.cpp recently. Is it real, or is it only me?

In terms of balancing @hyperion is on the right track, we need good quality data to decide what action needs to be taken. I would be happy to assist, to the level that my skills allow it. We need 1 of two things (or both), at least to start measuring the top level metrics: Simulate some games without the graphics part, I think there is something like that already implemented? Run say 10000 games, 1v1 all civs against all civs with same AI. I understand this can be resources intensive, but considering the fact that the work can be distributed across different members, it should be doable. Even better, since we already we have a lot of games in multiplayer, once a game is finished, to report not only winner, but also civs. Or the whole game log file even better. The server can collect the data and these data can be used for balancing. We can later go deeper in unit stats, and specific features. These statistics in later phase can be incorporated in the lobby as well for everyone to access easily. In the end balance is about the advantage or disadvantage that a civ provides to the player that is translated to victory or loss. So this is what needs to be tracked. We don't need to know which specific advantage is offering the edge, all we need to know is which civs have an "edge" and then apply any type of nerf. We could use both: In an ideal situation, we do balancing based on point 2 (real player matches). Before every new release we "run" point 1 (simulations between the ai), to make sure any new features and changes or even balancing actions have not "broken" the balance. Extra Thoughts: I think first we can focus in implementing the above for 1v1 games and then expand to more complicated scenarios like ffa and tg that team bonuses play a role. Land and Water: The drawback here is that the current state of rated 1v1 is mostly land, so it will not "balance" properly island maps. Maybe we can create 2 categories of civ stas. Land games, and water games, cause there are big differences between civs for the 2 of those. In general Civs must be balanced in both land alone and water alone, we shouldn't have civs that are weak in land and strong in water or vice versa. It sounds nice, but in terms of balancing I think all civs should be equally capable in all scenarios, maybe it does not make a lot of historical/accurate sense, but it makes for proper-fun gameplay. For example Athenian champion training from ships is quite OP, especially with a25 where the ships are shredding organic units, but in general they are considered weak civ for 1v1, because they are almost always land maps. This whole water power, land power is a big discussion, all I want to say is we need to keep it in mind if we implement a system like the one above. But we know which civs need nerfing/buffing. After-all we have people here that play 100s of games per release. Well, 25 releases show that we struggle to find a good balance and we always end up with strong and weak civs. But even so, I can accept the fact that some members have the experience to say which civs are stronger,weaker. Even in this case at least point 1 should be done and "run" before release and compared with previous release, so we know that the implemented balance "fix" will improve the game and not transfer imbalance from one civ to another. Next action: Create a component that takes in the saved file from a game and generates statistics for civs, segmented per relaease. We can even create a thread for people to upload their saved games so we can feed them to the calculator manually.

Dear @user1 Offending player DerekO quit rated game without resigning. My Lobby Name: Mastoras commands.txt

Hello DerekO, I've just finished watching the replay. First of all you terminated the game. Second, let me offer some highlights of the finale: - You had run out of resources. - Made a desperate final push. A push that was unlikely to succeed, even though you had some champions in the mix, you had almost zero ability for reinforcements, while I was literally in my base with abundant resources to spare for reinforcements. - All this while my rams were taking down your CC and with no units from your side to defend it. Also it is interesting that you terminated the session when my Rams arrived at your CC. Oh, I forgot, the game "crashed" when my rams arrived at your CC. So not your fault. Note: I waited at the Lobby in case you had some reasonable explanation to offer before reporting you. But you decided instead to come straight and report me first, so if I report you afterwards, there will be a "dispute" and you might get away with it. Of course I will report you, cause this behavior is unacceptable.

Dear @user1, Offending player pedrog quit rated game without resigning. My Lobby Name: Mastoras commands.txt

Dear @user1, Offending player MaleKaren quit rated game without resigning. My Lobby Name: Mastoras commands.txt

Dear @user1, Offending player thevlasic quit rated game without resigning. My Lobby Name: Mastoras commands.txt

Dear @user1, Offending player hungryhippo81 quit rated game without resigning. My Lobby Name: Mastorascommands.txt