real_tabasco_sauce

Only @Player of 0AD and I have added to the poll, can some others also enter your username and availability tomorrow here? https://www.when2meet.com/?16309448-e8MLS If at least 4 or 5 of us can come, we could easily recuit an additional 3 or 4 from the a25 lobby.

the amount matters. try 10 vs 10 and 50 vs 50, even 70 vs 70. the difference is that most of the spearcav have to path and find a target during which time 100 percent of the skirm cav can attack.

1v1s are needed too, particularly for things like fanatic rushes. I said we need 4v4s just because many people can use new features all at once, and testing is faster with more "hands on deck" so to speak.

i have tested them a bit, and tbh they seem balanced, but gameplay is how we will find OP stuff. we failed to test mercs adequately. I don't know if we will get a third RC, so thats why I listed extra stuff there.

To properly test for balance we will need many players (at least enough for a 4v4 or two). some things to think about while playing: thoughts on acceleration values. Han crossbows OP? Han swordcav rush OP? persia rush persia immortals OP? merc cav nerfed OK? catapults OP? A separate group can play on the latest version (SVN): try a fanatic rush, is it OP? try all in spartan rush are neodamodes spearmen OP?

I agree with these observations. Very insulting, toxic.

here is an appropriate nerf already in progress: https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4744 This evens the playing field for cav some. At least it will be easier to catch them with counter units. Feel free to case your vote in the poll here too.

There can be many reasons for that message. It could be your computer's antivirus, which you might need to change for 0ad. I have noticed that certain networks might not allow you to connect to other servers. (For example my university) Sometimes, however, this error pops up once and immediately rejoining after dismissing the error has no issue.

I don't need an example of how toxic you are in the lobby. Most people I know in the lobby agree on this. As for this discussion, just look at how you make such a big deal of nothing. You have written about 1000 words on this topic alone, just chill out. <this goes for the lobby too. In any case, the bottom line is that @SaidRdz is innocent, no cheating was committed.

Everything you have written qualifies as "antics" XD 1. This entire discussion. And the other topic you made. 2. You are super toxic in the lobby too, always hating on nubs. 3. u get extremely angry when you lose, profanity and all. 4. You blame everything on other people, and act like you are perfect: "Oh no it couldn't be me, it couldn't be that I messed up. It has to be someone else's fault" long story short: "im not ranting!!!!!!" *proceeds to rant

<< omg stop topic spam plz >> Also dancing is not cheating: The game has parameters that define the movement of units. The player can move as much as they want, resulting in micro (considered good) and dancing (considered bad). However, the line between these two can be grey. For example, would you consider retreating a unit in a zig zag pattern dancing? It is better to allow all unit movement than to try and ban specific movements. Another reason is that it doesn't really effect the game that much. It could a little in a 1v1, but all it does in a TG is make you mad lol. I believe acceleration in a26 will be the end of dancing, so you can finally be at peace .

I don't think cav should be 2 pop. Cav spam can be annoying when players use them as a replacement for infantry, just because they are stronger and do more damage. I would prefer the mobility being the primary advantage over infantry, so a damage nerf should be fine here. One issue (which I have attempted to address) is that cavalry can see much farther than infantry, which makes them much harder to track down and kill. I think the best approach is to fix gameplay so that cavalry counters are more effective.

why not just rejoin? U can rejoin right after getting kicked, hosts use it as a warning sometimes.

Any more voters want to cast their vote? @wowgetoffyourcellphone, maybe @borg-, other balancers too.

Dancing is not cheating. The timing of the ddos here does sound super suspicious.

when would players be interested in a large release candidate test? I think the best chance is some time this coming weekend. A few 4v4s and 1v1s should be enough to get a better idea of how strong certain changes are: things to try: han civ, with new changes persia changes, weapon switching immortals fanatic rushes (especially in 1v1s)

unification first IMO

there are plenty of better ways to improve performance, without making AOE4 homing missiles. Here's an easy one: increase the repeat time of all soldiers. Now archers only shoot every 1.5 seconds for example, meaning half the range queries are needed. this would be good in addition. Would it be OK in this case to lower projectile speed? Or would this also have negative consequences for performance?

why do you think this changes APM at all. The actions taken are the same. Take for example some cavalry skirmishers encounter spearcav on a head-on collision course. In both 80 meter and 92 meter ranges (even 200 meters if you like), the player will retreat the skirmishers REGARDLESS of when they see each other. That is one "action" if they see each other with one second until collision or four, the actions involved are identical. This patch will not impact the micro required to use cavalry, only the vision range. it will change some things: @Gurken Khan said it will take longer to scout the map, i agree. More actions are needed to scout the map, but the rate is the same. primarily: one must now be a little more careful using cavalry because there is less warning before you encounter spearmen for example. (note that this does not change the "micro" required, as I explained above). also, do not think I want 40 meter vision range. My original patch listed 75 meters, but I kept it at 80 so that less people would shoot it down.

@alre what happened to this nice attitude? you are now vehemently against the proposal.

ok but how does this patch change micro?? its the same actions per minute. If anything it makes infantry better, not cavalry. So it is noob friendly. Noobs might not know why they cannot stop cavalry, why they lose so much. Its because the cavalry see their spearmen long before the spearmen see cavalry. This is not making the learning curve steeper: it is balancing infantry and cavalry vision. A very small change to gameplay. Stop making it something it is not.

? no I said this because you literally said:

as it should be. They are fast, you should be careful not to wander into spearmen. Again, this will not increase the micro required to use cavalry in any way: you still do the same number of clicks!!! The only difference is that you have to react a little bit faster. so you like the lighthouse cavalry? I just feel like once you have a cav army, especially with champions, you basically have fog of war turned off XD. There's no question about where your enemies are.

I still can't find one good reason to not reduce vision of cavalry. here are some reasons to equalize infantry and cavalry vision to 80: general infantry/cavalry balance spearmen more likely to successfully reach or trap cavalry slightly easier for spearcav to chase down ranged cavalry. level playing field for archers versus archer cav (for example in a camel rush) champion cavalry no longer see 96 meters (massive compared to 80, see my pics), slightly easier to defeat. scout towers more relevant overall more surprising and exciting gameplay.

@alre was discussing micro for fighting with horse archers. taking longer, not more micro. Your actions per minute will be the same, whether you queue more waypoints, or scout manually. Most players would not even consider scouting micro to be honest. Micro is usually just handling the details of a fight: retreating weak soldiers to safety, sniping key enemy soldiers, using formations, even dancing if you are toxic lol.