real_tabasco_sauce

yep, this is the case, and I was able to figure out the issue. I guess thinking out loud helps lol.

It seems to me that if the preferred class length is 1 (['Humans']), then the only possible preference value is 0 or undefined, where humans get 0 and anything else gets undefined.

is someone familiar with preference values from GetPreference() in Attack.js? It's not clear if values are ascending with increased priority or descending. For instance, my guess is that a tower with a preference class of ['Human'] will give humans a preference of 0 and anything else a preference of 1, but maybe this is wrong.

So @maroder I saw your point about the dropdown menu not being "drop-up" menus, and I agree. However, the placement debate remains, especially if you ever want to add the vanilla backgrounds to the mod. (not sure if there are other constraints here) one solution is to group mod selection, hotkeys, language, and options(settings) underneath a new large dropdown called "options". I would say options is on a similar level of importance as "learn to play" "Single Player" and "Multiplayer". This way, with 4 items, you can have symmetry around the 0ad logo at the top, and leave space for the backgrounds in the middle of the screen. The last thing to consider then is where to put "scenario editor" and "exit". It would make sense to slide them both over to the top right, next to the WFG logo, since they both take you out of the game.

not a youtube video but a video nonetheless: Some users suggest that there are no "tactics" in 0ad, and that battles are too chaotic and fast for player inputs to make a difference. In this video, you can see why that’s not the case. Here @SaidRdz (black) has a moderate upgrade advantage, but is surrounded and quite outnumbered by Blue and red. All three players here are similar in 0ad experience, but @chrstgtr and @Isam f are behind due to a rush. saidOP.mp4 There are certainly tactics and strategic decisions made even in very large fights. The key is that they should be made quickly and precisely if you want to win.

It's the pillars right? The ones with pillars, like the forge in particular, seem slightly taller. I really like the style these buildings have, very cool!

Nah, every shyft account is identical. He logs on with some offensive name and within minutes, he says "donkey". He is too simple to maintain two personas.

The UI explains it well enough imo. If you want, you can just bind them both to the same hotkey.

Well, its kind of a strange thing to add, there are pros and cons. One point of concern is that a group of units can be in a "formation" but UnitAI can still move them out of it. What this means is that the formations bonus still applies even if the units are not in the shape of the formation. If the bonus only applies while they are in position, then it doesn't help melee units at all. I'm not saying the current behavior is bad necessarily, its just that its weird to have some effect even when the formation is effectively disbanded. If these are added, I think they would all have to be completely neutral tradeoffs, which would require some careful balancing. for example: wedge gets +10% damage but -50% acceleration.

No, that would just add another layer of complexity. @wowgetoffyourcellphone just described “March” as being another formation. I am still unsure if I support giving formations stats.

I'm not familiar. Is it degarrison unit and unit for the building to attack are the same? I guess that would be pretty logical, and no need for extra confusing hotkeys.

An easy way to make formations more useful would be to remove the "march" form for each formation. If I want my units to be in a formation, they should stay that way instead of organizing and reorganizing into a "march" just to move 100 meters.

Which do you mean? 1) currently in a26, 2) with the current proposal, or 3) with added user input to buildingAI arrows? I guess technically it is true for all of the above lol The thing is, players absolutely want to be able to degarrison their swords directly onto rams. Perhaps there will need to be some function(s) to distinguish building (or ship or siege tower) attack input from rally point input. @wowgetoffyourcellphone this will probably be needed for ships if they should function as units and as transport (unless transport is only as a non-fighting transport ship). For buildings, the default right click could be rally point and some hotkey (maybe force attack) could be used to target a unit in range. For ships and siege engines, IDK: maybe the same, or maybe the default should be attack, with some modifier to set the rally point.

I guess one of the main issues would be discerning between rally point location (ie degarrison to attack an enemy) versus for the building to actually attack that unit. I imagine players wouldn't want to lose the ability to degarrison "onto" an enemy unit with an attack command.

1v1s are typically 8 to 20 minutes long, 4v4s are typically 16 to 30 minutes long

As far as I understand, allowing players to control building arrows would be a much bigger undertaking than the simple behavior change I made. I agree that adding it as it is now puts siege towers and ships in an awkward spot in terms of game design. Perhaps this behavior can fully debut for buildings alongside @wowgetoffyourcellphone's ship rework and allowing siege towers to have a capture attack. That way the behaviors for buildings, ships, and siege towers are all logical and differentiated at the same time. So, adding it to the community mod makes perfect sense to me. @BreakfastBurrito_007 what exploits are concerning to you?

And siege towers.

Well the idea there is that if the fort helps more with 0 pop garrisoned, then your army would be at a significant advantage over the other army. Having to garrison to get more arrows might be good if you have no other options, but it would be better to actually use your army in an even fight with a fort nearby. Specifically because the fort can immediately get kills, reducing the damage output of the enemy. Definitely needs playtesting, but it seems a lot of players in the lobby are interested. Perhaps its best as a community mod branch for the time being.

I’d say I agree with most of what you mentioned. Particularly that play testing will be needed. one thing that could be done along the lines of rebalance is adjusting default and max arrows. forts have only 1 more than ccs. So to increase the standalone defensive value of forts, the default arrows should be like 8

@chrstgtr @BreakfastBurrito_007 I'm pretty sure the situation was fixed thanks to @Freagarach. I added a sort so that the closes unit is always the default target. Previously, the unit that entered the towers radius first was the target, and if it moved away, it would still be targeted.temp.zip Sorry the mod isn't polished, its really just to get proof of concept. Unzip and move to your mods folder, and be sure to disable the normal community mod before using this version.

1. Arrows do not fire all at the same time, it is a stream of arrows (very low overkill regardless of accuracy) 2. How do you think killing 1 horse versus injuring 4 impacts raid outcomes? Overgeneralizing things with plenty of nuance doesn't help. If you are worried buildings will be weak in terms of balance, their damage and default arrows can be changed as needed.

Oh, interesting, I was not aware of this patch. If this is doable, I'd love to let siege towers be the only unit capable of capturing walls.

Well, if you go ahead and get the mod, we can test it out next time we meet. The current version posted elsewhere also includes the accuracy changes for cc/fort. It will be called "community-mod" but importantly the folder is "temp". You should definitely disable the current community mod v4 before applying the buildingAI mod.

+ increased spread for cc and fort to 3 and 4 respectively.