real_tabasco_sauce

ok, i just tested the nerfed eles with a mod I made: eleNerf.zip This mod only applies to a27. Eles are still strong even when both sides are fully upgraded (blacksmith upgrades don't apply to eles). The test I did was 50 archers + 10 eles vs 50 spearmen and 50 skirms. (80 pop vs 100 pop) the archers won with 42 remaining and 0 eles remaining. Possibly this is still OP, but 10 eles (big eles) costs 5500 res (2200 metal, 3300 food) while the spearmen only costed 2500 food and wood. Possibly this is still too OP, but we have to remember that these are champions, and also that micro could massively decrease their effectiveness (make the enemy eles chase units). They do go down pretty fast to massed ranged units, so perhaps the balance is fine and they could just be considered a known counter to melee units going forward.

Its pretty exciting for gameplay and all civs have rams. Eles still have pretty decent capability vs buildings, but don't expect to take down a fortress with just 1.

Its true, but I had a huge upgrade disadvantage, slightly outnumbered, and somewhat poorly placed my pikemen. @Philip the Swaggerless probably wasn't aware just how powerful they were, but I think the eles did too well in that fight. You can do unit tests if you want. You will find that 10 eles can kill 100 spearmen and only lose 1 elephant. So either their damage should be adjusted: https://code.wildfiregames.com/D5008 or maybe their HP reduced, now that they are not an alternative ram.

There was a time you could capture catapults and bolt shooters.

Windowed mode seems the only thing that fixes it. The big blue screen tears still happen with vulkan+borderless.fullscreen = 'false'

yeah I'd support making it either a lot darker or a lot lighter, like a silvery grey.

splash attack -10 crush + direct attack + 10 crush One could even move all crush to the direct attack to streamline a bit. Something like direct: 30h 60c, indirect: 20h

metadata.jsoncommands.txt Alright the first posted multiplayer game of a27 rc. Not very balanced, and I had a rough eco. The elephants I trained as @Philip the Swaggerless attacked did unreasonably well, so I think a nerf is warranted. I am thinking 20 hack 20 crush for the splash, and then add back the 10 crush to the direct attack.

is it actually supposed to be false as stated here or "false" like the other options?

ok going out of fullscreen worked perfectly well. Screen tears only occur in fullscreen for me, and borderless fullscreen = "false" did not solve the issue in fullscreen.

borderless.fullscreen = "false" did not fix it. I do have a26 and a27 rc concurrently installed, but not running at the same time. I will try later with a26 uninstalled.

Not sure what kind of issue this could be but in the multiplayer lobby @Palaiologos cannot see or join the game I host, but I can see and join @Palaiologos's game. It doesnt help that I know almost nothing about the lobby.

No, there is no minimum level, we will just balance accordingly. Looks like Saturday and Sunday are available for people beginning at 5:30 UTC. Only 4 people filled out the form, so I will just plan to be available for much of the time window.

Does anyone else have this screen tearing issue? With vsync, its playable for sure, but it would be preferable to not need vsync.

yes, thats what would make sense to me. I think of matchmaking as a longer-term goal.

¡Genial! Really good work @Duileoga I like this roster a lot, and I think it will be well differentiated. It seems that with the right combination of heroes and civ bonuses, this could be a super fun civ to play.

Not sure if I would call it a 'prerequisite', but I would consider those items important for a major release, bringing the game to a wider audience. voice lines for civs. performance (all around, not just multiplayer) improved ranked play system (including matchmaking) additional content for strategic development (ie more technologies) campaigns. While it is officially an 'alpha', I have observed that we effectively have a live service model.

https://trac.wildfiregames.com/log/ps?action=stop_on_copy&mode=stop_on_copy&rev=27652&stop_rev=&limit=100&verbose=on&sfp_email=&sfph_mail=# Well, there is a changelog in the other discussion: But I think the link I first shared is more complete. I am pretty sure the log messages typically say that a given change is from the community mod. One thing I didn't see in the changelog was decreasing catapult range to 85, but also decreasing the minimum range.

Ill put the poll link here as well. So far only three of us are in there. https://www.when2meet.com/?20172866-g4yFd no info or sign in is required, only your gamer tag.

I am using vulkan + vsync, and the intel mac build. One thing I have noticed is a very subtle flicker when hitting enter to open the chat window. you can see it more clearly when looking at the FPS counter. It also happens when pressing t to open team chat. I also sometimes see the display 'slide' slightly out of my screen and then back in place, but this is difficult to tie to a specific action. None of these behaviors occur when I am recording the screen. When I turn vsync off, the screen tears massively when opening the chat window. Again it doesnt occur when I screen record. small screen tears (novsync) occur when panning around the map, and they are fixed with vsync. Big screen tears always happen when opening the chatbox, and rarely happen outside of that. (mostly fixed with vsync).

I like all of them to be honest, but I will tell you if I see complaints.

Hmm yeah it might make sense to do this within the framework of the lobby. Especially since there are no dedicated servers. Perhaps then in the event there is no 1v1 available, the player in matchmaking would become the host. I also think it would be good to restrict the available maps (those that allow a rating) to a set of more balanced maps, perhaps the 'Best for MP' maps. I have seen players insisting to play polar sea in order to gain an advantage because they always play that map.

Any automatic matchmaking should avoid matching players with strong differences in rating. Also, new players should be matched against new players when possible. One common approach here is to let new players play 5 random matches against anyone for 'placement'. I would think these would be for no rating, just 'placement' match, but I am not super familiar with the details.

Hi everyone, I am trying to get together some gameplay testing for the release candidate so we can make appropriate balance decisions if needed before a27 is released. Also it would be great to see what improvements to 4v4s might be made possible by the hard work the devs have put into performance. below is a whentomeet poll (no password or sign in required) that asks you to fill in your 0ad username and enter the times you could play. https://www.when2meet.com/?20172866-g4yFd Once you have entered the times you can play the RC, you can close the site, no need to hit 'submit' or anything. @MarcusAureliu#s@Stockfish @LetswaveaBook @Player of 0AD @chrstgtr @ValihrAnt

Well for me, I would rather play a mystery opponent than browse 1v1s in the lobby, some of which might be playing on imbalanced or noncompetitive maps. I might worry about balance while this pressure is taken off in a matchmaking system. As for ratings, yes, some decisions would need to be made. I think smurfing wouldn't be any more problematic than it already is. In a matchmaking system, their rating would quickly climb to that of their original account. I think it would be good to reset rankings with the introduction of a system like this. 1v1s are much better in terms of performance than team games, even to the point that its common to do 300 population 1v1s. Although you are right that performance would need further improvement for 1v1s to be highly streamable.