real_tabasco_sauce

I love the idea! Although @Ginnungagap Danubius can take quite a long time, so you might need more than one hour between these games!

this confuses me. Are those people you after all? It seems like it from this. In any case, those people didn't help. But still, nobody is stopping you from contributing. You could make a pr right now, you could help me with the one i showed you in the autosnipe thread. The main thing I see being prevented is this remarkable, intricate web of different accounts XD. There is work on multithreading but its wip.

@Seleucids have you seen https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/pulls/6960? Basically, it worked really nicely on windows vs windows, but when I tested with a player on a GCC build, it went OOS. If you can build both on windows and on linux then you can help me test and solve this. Other than this OOS, its pretty much ready to go.

I think you should pick one tag and stick to it. I think if you do that people will forgive your older accounts. I also deal with hate from Geriatrix and others for my contributions to the community mod. I typically just mute him, but i understand that basically he's beyond help. from the more recent champcav discussion, we reached some fairly agreed upon ideas and I incorporated one of them into this PR: https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/pulls/7258 no doubt there will still be issues, but I think it could take the edge off somewhat.

What I don't understand @Seleucids is the need to have so many accounts and personas. If you really just want what's best for 0ad, why not consistently help out with the one account instead of contributing to all this confusion and chaos?

Strategy is using intel on your opponents and allies to establish a plan. Just like Alexander vs Darius and Marathon battle etc, the winners always relate to scouting because it is the way of gathering such intel; along with communication with allies. A predefined way of preparing and fighting is a tactic, I think it's just accurate to call it that way. meh, I don't think its that deep. A strategy is just a plan of action. Which is why obscuring territory line updates in FOW is not the only thing I suggested.

Ok, I guess you require here that strategy be based on scouting. I don't think being informed or enabled by scouting is required for something to be considered a strategy. scouting is underused at the moment, largely because its "one and done", once you have scouted the enemy territory, you can see resource depletion and you can see territory lines change indicating phase. Sure it "nerfs" the power of the initial scouting, but it makes continued scouting critical. Another big reason is that there's not all that much to scout for. This is why I suggested some other ideas in the list. Expanding strategic options makes scouting better because guessing the enemy's approach becomes much harder.

the amount of tasks you are responsible for is not in any way at the expense of strategy. It just means you have to decide where you will spend your effort. yes, and? If its a hunt map, maybe a cav rush is good. Low wood? get slingers and mercs maybe. Though I would like to make scouting more impactful. Ideas on increasing strategies: Hide territory line updates in FOW, hide resource collection development of unique units unit specific technologies. New economic unit: Laborer try to embellish unit roles and counters (heavilty limited by citizen soldier framework) maybe champs can be more involved with this?

So I think the sparta p1 champs are still not really viable in the com mod. We don't have time for a community mod release, but I was thinking to let the building itself grant a pop space of 10, like a house would. This provides a selective benefit to their use early in the game, and since it is a "mess hall" it reasonably could support population space.

the brit chariots are one of the top 5 strongest units in the game. In both vanilla and the community mod. with non-random building ai (in the com mod) sentry towers provide some relief from camels. if you try to "fill in the holes" of each civ, you get civs that do the same things but just in slightly different ways, which is bad. Civs should have strengths and weaknesses.

Those are bad takes, specifically the point on avoiding the consultation of the best players when balancing and designing features. A game can be highly competitive and very casual.

A while back i had the idea to let siege tower capture attack be determined by the garrisoned units and let it be the only unit capable of capturing walls. The arrow attack would become secondary to the capture ability, or maybe replaced with some stone dropping function.

Oh so its still possible to use svn standalone? neat, I didn't know.

as long as the PR doesn't need to be built, it could work to make a remote out of the person's fork you want a branch from. The only question would be if it somehow interferes with the nightly build. I'll give an example from when I tried a recent patch (https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/pulls/7268): git remote add wraitii https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/wraitii/0ad.git git remote update git checkout -b actual_timer_test wraitii/actual_timer you might have to get the nightly binaries again after this. If you don't want to use git, i'm not sure how to do it. I'm sure others will come with better ideas.

Well at least now that the game is signed, macos users won't have their operating system telling them that the game is malware XD. I suppose it could just be "In development".

@wowgetoffyourcellphone means the regular unit attack. And yes, getting rid of buildingAI would remove the arrows per garrisoned soldier.

Might be cool to do an olive plantation building to replace the metal mining civ bonus. Although could exist in addition to the existing one. If and when a model is made, I could come up with a pretty good way to integrate it into the civ.

its as far as the line of sight goes. I'm pretty sure the hero will stay put if you set him to standground. Then only units that walk into range are healed.

I've been working on this partial solution for sniping (https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/pulls/6960) but its hard to get ppl to test, now I am pretty much too busy to worry about the rough sort idea. Unless someone can pull off a micacle and figure out the OOS. Depending on the release process, I might be able to get it working. Even still, that is just a potential solution. You can't just "delete" sniping, unless you want to eliminate order-1-unit. you can reduce its generalizability and effectiveness as I have tried. Further benefits would be to increase the ways in which units are counters of one another, which is very difficult with the citizen soldier model. I do have some ideas that could help but they are a long way off, although they could be tested with the com mod.

The "little edge" you speak of is not cheating, if it were considered cheating, it would be impossible to catch or regulate. click multipliers and macros are certainly detectable with tools like this one, but not obvious in real time. These should be considered cheating, but there is no practical means to regulate their use.

Hi @Kiselena, sorry you feel a bit lost! There is certainly a lot going on. Don't feel like you have to meet the demands of anybody . This is a passion project, so definitely take your time to learn and choose something to work on that interests you! I recommended the market since you were interested in buildings, but we do have a market that will work for the near term.

super cool @ffm2

well, yeah i recognize its a bit divisive. instead, i think hack armor tweaks are the best way forward at least for the time being.

The blue is better and the red is more associated with stopping something. Before, it was maybe seen as good vs bad.

welcome to the forum! I agree with the speed point. Cavalry are supposed to be faster than infantry but they don't need to be that much faster. What I would like is actually just to delete the cav speed tech (and for that matter the general cav HP tech). These technologies are so cheap that they basically serve as a direct buff to the late game stats of cavalry. Early on, they conflict with the actual training of cavalry. However, I know this point is controversial. Now about the com mod in general, the melee/ranged rebalance does give champ melee cavalry more damage, but it handles all melee units equally in that regard. The issue with champ cav in vanilla is that they are shockingly tanky and pretty much the only way to lose a lot of persian, seleucid, or roman champs is to either take a losing fight like you mentioned or to be forced to take the fight. Seleucid champs in vanilla: 400 hp, 15 hack, 14 pierce armor w/ hero while doing less damage than an infantry skirmisher. They have almost as much hack armor as a stable or barracks: about 9% more hack damage than a stable (88% vs 79% resistance). Also, a possible reason the champs lost is the player failed to make lots of skirm cav in order to deal damage (CS skirm cav deal much more damage than champ melee cav, 29% more damage). in vanilla, champs are extremely tanky, acting like a damage sponge so these skirm cav are very protected and are free to do tons of damage. While changes in damage are very easy to apply across unit types, armor is not. Because it is discrete, there were probably cases where the ideal armor values were not reached. So, if something should be changed, i'd suggest to decrease champ cav armor values. Decreasing hack armor in particular serves to lessen sword units' near irrelevance to melee champ cav, and will compound nicely with the existing cav multiplier for spearmen possible meaning no change to the counter value is needed.