guerringuerrin

I think it's too hasty to say that Fanatics are OP and should be nerfed. I believe the adjustment made to them actually enriched the game and introduced a new strategy that forces all of us out of our comfort zones and encourages more creativity. As @chrstgtr mentioned earlier, I think what we’re seeing here is the typical panic from a player when a strategy they’ve perfected and repeated countless times is suddenly put at risk. I don’t feel the same way about champ cav, particularly Gauls and Seleucids, and I still believe it would be good to slightly adjust their stats or improve a unit that can serve as a counter to champ cavs. This doesn’t mean a nerf so strong that it renders a costly late-game unit useless — one for which a player clearly deserves to be rewarded — but in its current state it feels more like the endgame goal that everyone rushes to in order to decide the outcome of a match, and personally, I find that dynamic boring. A parallel reflection that comes to mind from this debate is that, in many multiplayer RTS games, a certain strategy often becomes the meta and seems unbeatable — and this leads other players to develop new strategies to counter it, which enriches the evolution of the game. There are many examples of this in 0 A.D., but I won’t go into detail to avoid making this too long. I believe the current dynamic in many multiplayer matches is to ‘play it safe’ — which basically means booming — and this stifles creativity and discourages players from trying new things out of fear of completely failing and being seen as weak players. What if u go play some multiplayer and see how it goes by yourself? No trolling intended here, but I find very difficult to achieve that players start sharing replays to make the point. Replays aren't even named, so it's a tedious job to identify them. And it's not very motivating to go through all that work just to show it to a singleplayer-focused player, since — at least with the current state of the game's AI — multiplayer and singleplayer feel like completely different games.

If the purpose of the units is to counter cav, then why don't just nerf a little their damage against infantry?

You should see how champ cav performs on a TG, and how is the dynamic we talking about. they really need a nerf or some kind of counter unit. its absurd that some of them can wipe out pikes like nothing

I don't support a hard counter style like aoe2 but right now meta is whoever masses champcav first wins (unless he bad micro/noobs ofc) turning almost every game in a champcav race, if you'd have some kind of counter or better soldiers to hold it, player would aim for other strategies. but we can disagree on that ofc

Totally agree on this. But I'd say that every unit should have a counter unit to make the game more dinamically. If a unit doesnt have a counter at least from a good number of civs, then the game just turns into a champcav race. And thats make some kind of boring gameplays

darn he just spoiled

I guess that's right, but I'm not sure

Yes, @Dakara The mod ensures the seed for map generation to be reset so you don't play always the same map when you have Persistant map settings enabled on Options and you play exactly the same settings again. Notice that if you change some of the map settings, like biome (this should be check) or size, the seed will be reset. But if you keep the things same as game before you will playing the same seed until the end of times. You just need to copypaste the .zip content into your mod's folder like \mods\ResetSeed I think you can also just copypaste the .zip like: \mods\ResetSeed.zip but im not sure

@hyperion https://drive.google.com/file/d/15vGn4ddL1nNRbtZeXqI5sqKLhm7zyNAt/view?usp=sharing This is another example. The game was originally hosted by @erictommy, and everything was going fine until several spectators joined at some point. One of them caused an OOS, but we continued the match for a few seconds until the simulation completely froze (the GUI was still responsive). levai was one of the active players in the match — I don’t remember if he left on his own or was kicked, but once he was out, the simulation started working again. When he rejoined, the same thing happened: simulation frozen, GUI functional. We decided to save and rehost the match, this time with me as the host. After everyone loaded in, the simulation was frozen again. Once levai left, it resumed. So we saved and hosted again, but this time replaced levai with RangerK — who happened to be the player that, when kicked or banned, allowed the simulation to continue normally — as if there was a problem tied specifically to that slot or civilization. What’s strange is that the simulation started failing when a spectator joined the game. Until then, everything worked fine and levai hadn’t shown any lag or other performance issues. A preliminary hypothesis is that this bug occurs when a player or spectator finishes loading the game or map. Why do I think this? Because the only thing I can clearly identify in common between a match just starting and one already in progress when a spectator joins, is the act of loading the game/map.

@hyperion https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BUfQS7Vyi9jUcRVY7M2IW_P4VFA_JUF_/view?usp=drive_link Sharing through drive bc file is too big This happened today. Unfortunately, I didn’t start recording from the beginning, but the behavior is exactly what we mentioned earlier: The game starts, the GUI is responsive, you can select units and buildings and issue commands, but nothing moves and unit production doesn’t start either. The suspected player gets kicked or leaves, and everything starts working normally. In this case, it was reza-math, who often plays in my matches. It could be a "false positive" and just a connection issue. But I think this is the kind of behavior we’ve been seeing more frequently lately. @Atrikcould you confirm this is more or less what you described? reza-math is using Windows 10

84 score Reasoning: 0ad anthropologist

I think it's a cool idea, and would be nice to have a way to configure it so player can choose use them or not, or maybe assign each style to desired teams

I've experienced this as host. Max Lag for observer set to -1 on my case. Didn't test kicking observers. I've experienced this with at least 3 different hosts that often hosts games, including me as host. Idk, will ask next time I'm not sure but I think it happens with both versions. Currently using 0.27.1 but i'm not sure if everyone is using it

It looks like similar behavior of game stuttering due to PC performance Are you referring to cases where no unit moves and no orders are executed, but the GUI and camera remain responsive? I’ve also noticed that in cases like this, hosts start kicking players until units begin to move again. But after the suspected bugged player rejoins, the game continues with exaggerated stuttering.

@Atrik oh u might want tu change it's label in mod.json to describe what it does

6 lines of brilliant code, thanks @Atrik. plz PR for the next release

Ohh lol ok I went to an art high school, does that sound like a good excuse? I was doing (5+(3)*7) + (8+(3.5)) / 3.5 Why? there is no why

+1 Yes but, please, get rid of that slash and put the attack interval on a new line. This is heresy against the sacred grid btw: where the 49 DPS comes from? my maths are not working there

I prefer this version with 1 stat (hack, pierce) per line I think this version is more difficult to read and to identify the different stats Also, the green color greatly improved its legibility, as it allows you to identify different types of values within the same block of text (just like the orange used for the stat name), and I think it helps associate the bonus % with the actual bonus value. I love it, @Atrik! Yeah, I'm not sure about this either @Dunedan

Yeah that's pretty much what we have been discussed with @Atrikin the previous messages. I do like more a vertical layout design rather than an horizontal you propose (as the vanilla is) because I think it's much more easy to read and identifies the different stats as can be seen here: @Atrikmaybe you could share a screenshot of this same damage tooltip of a melee unit so we can see how is shown? ( I'm at the cellphone rn ) About DPS number shown next to the unit portrait. I rather put the final damage of the unit instead of the DPS calculation as I find it a bit confusing. I guess some would say it's better to compare different units damage per second as different units have different attack intervals.

This is an example for the opposite point because in aoe2 there are lots of different hidden stats per unit that aren't shown. Its actually a great system to only show the basic stats of the unit, because showing all the stats would take up too much space and cloud out critical basic stats that can change with upgrades. I'd say going from this: To this: Is definitely an improvement in that direction

Here:

Sure I guess one thing is to use the market another to exploit a vulnerability. I guess the important thing is this has been noticed and could be a fix of its mechanic to avoid this kind of exploits in the future

I think it becomes very evident when someone sell one Resource to buy another, incurring clear and significant losses, only to later use the second Resource (which was purchased very inefficiently) to buy back the first one or other assets with exorbitant yield rates. As can be seen in the Cube screenshot from the first message in this thread. And one could say the same kind of technique was used here: So the question is: why would someone make such inefficient trades, only to quickly reverse them with the exact same trade in the opposite direction? So if my math is correct, what Arup did was: First Trade 2800 Food for 1462 Wood Secondly Trade 2000 Wood for 3940 Food So u can do the maths 3940 - 2800 = 1140 FOOD 2000 - 1462 = 538 Wood And in the end is like he trade 538 Wood for 1140 Food. Which is like get 211 Food for every 100 Wood

My point is the tooltip isn't actually describing the DPS — it's describing the unit's combat stats. 7.2 (+1.1) damage at 1.25 second intervals. At no point does it show the calculation based on the damage dealt in one second (the 6.6 shown the hovering element) BUT... ...I get your point here. Makes sense. Hack Damage Reduction seems a good choice Yeah it's pretty the same way as aoe2 shows it but using brackets. It's not that obvious but I agree with you: let's avoid cluttered ugliness Your hopes has been heard. @vanz sorry for flood your thread with off-topic discussion