real_tabasco_sauce

very little space on my computer, but maybe I can try. edit: xcode takes 12 GB need more than double that for intall apparently

K/D ratio would be problematic, but fortunately value ratio is divided by res spent, so the denominator will always be greater than the numerator, except for scenarios where you start with units. I see what you mean about weights tho. I see. I thought you meant 0 as default. IMO, exploration is a skill that gives you (in theory) the upper hand in a fight, so there should be no need to score exploration in addition to units value killed, etc. When I set it to 0 I find a much more accurate list.

I like all of these. Gates HP should also be decreased by the same amount

I think acceleration may effectively do this. I don't have svn tho.

Ok I thought some more about this metric and now I am convinced the best measure for effectiveness could be this: average (or integral) over gametime (0, end gametime] of value ratio (where value ratio = military score/ resources spent). ^the main advantage is that this would still account for players with high value ratios early in the game (ie early rushes) It would be similar to how average K/D ratio gives a better idea than end-of-game K/D ratio see red below:

It also looks like the default weight for map exploration is 10 (version 0.26.5). I bet this is a typo, right?

Here is an idea actually: score is a weird topic as shown in a couple of discussions. Sometimes a large eco score can boost ones score even if they fight horribly. I have mentioned the possibility of a new score metric in other discussions including suggestions for A27: I wonder if using "value ratio" would be suitable for this mod? This could also give a more appropriate score to rushing players, since I see Aslan. and H. Herle are poorly rated in my lists. What do you think @Mentula? In practice, I guess this would look like adding resources spent to the available weights customization window, although the ratio would also be nice.

I like this a lot, it seems valuable for balancing. However: If I host a TG and balance based on how well people play versus me, am I likely to get a balanced game? I guess this comes down to the certainty of the score (how many matches I have played) so the recipe for a balanced TG is to balance my (the host's) local ratings on both sides, correct? Also one problem: Since the Local Rating is only visible in match setup in the absence of 0ad's ratings, it is rare to see other's local ratings. This limits the potential for the mods use as a balancing tool. ^Nevermind, this is not the case. It was just a coincidence I have never played these two below me.

yes, I hear youtubers talking about different civs "power spikes." I think this is like what you are referring to. Ie once Koreans are castle age they get war wagons which is a good time to go on the attack. However, I think 0ad does this to some degree too, and that more civ differentiation would likely increase power spikes.

I have this in windowed mode (A25). My computer screen is broken so I play in windowed mode to see all the important buttons for gameplay. When I look at the tech tree it looks like @Lion.Kanzen's picture, but I can fix it by expanding the window. Maybe this helps.

Yes, it seems AOE3 was his favorite. I thought u meant like pro-level aoe player.

is he really?

This is a non-problem. The game is not complicated, honestly it is more simple than AOE2. I quite honestly don't understand what is the problem here. How on earth is the game design limiting development? Why do we need to completely overhaul the game design? I don't see how this fixes anything to be honest. these are real problems. If I may add performance issues, but this is already understood.

Just curious: Would increasing all soldier repeat times a little bit improve performance at all? damage would need to be increased to maintain dps.

@Lion.Kanzen would it be possible to make the forests a little more dense? Or perhaps more like patches like in mainland generation. This usually makes for better multiplayer gameplay. The map looks really good and I bet this would be fun on nomad.

keep in mind that batch training allows the next batch to be trained sooner.

nice handwriting!

perhaps it could be a super expensive mercenary?

yeah tbh blacksmith cost should be considered after plenty of time spent in A26. Im still on the fence.

yes. It is a turtler's dream lol. Imagine fort, towers, CC, and the army camp arrows all together. It would be a nightmare. That being said, you can build a camp on your border and then later append territory towards it to keep it under your influence without garrisoning.

They don't cost stone, but they do cost 300 wood versus 200 wood.

Athens is already changed quite a bit: https://code.wildfiregames.com/rP26754 Should be much more interesting in a26.

i guess this is true. there are actually plenty of p2 strategies and currently mercs are played exensively in p2. However that just speaks to the strength of merc cav and not the upgrades availability. Rome and athens are just lacking in p2 (for now at least). Kush are on par with mace as far as merc cav go. Both of those are not quite as OP as carthage. Ptol players often build 2 forges, 1 market and can barter immediately to p3. I would think adding stone cost to blacksmiths might make this harder, but maybe it wouldn't be that effective. Honestly ptol just needs a nerf in general. I do stand by the more progressive research times (20 sec lvl 1, 40, 60 etc).

possible forge balancing changes: 50 additional stone cost (to make furnace I guess), make research times more progressive (40sec for level 1, 50sec for level 2, 60sec for level 3 -> 20, 40, 60 sec) Reason: not spamming 3 to 4 forges to get p3 faster, make p2 fights more practical, make initial upgrades more accessible with just 1 or 2 forges.

maybe: upon gaining +1 pierce armor, units receive 10 percent less pierce damage?