guerringuerrin

Hey, what do you think of something like this to show community-mod changes in-game? Not the best place to have them since it's the credits section but at least they are reachable in-game. I think it would be better to add them in a subsection inside Options like other mods has. I still figuring out how to do that without adding too much code. I probably missed some important changes or wrote down them wrong. Feel free to improve this. Although this is only a proposal

@Atrik Alright, that looks so much better. The design of the squares is beautiful! I notice some smudging in the headers (Team #). I would try without bold/stroke to avoid the letter's wholes being filled and letters not being touched each other. Also, I would change civ name's colors for another more dark to make more contrast with the background. I wonder if it's not too hard to use the player's colors in the player's names instead of using diplomatic colors. Or maybe this can change according to player's preferences using the respective toggle button. Finally, I would move the content a little down. Right now is too much close to the header. The spear can be smaller, so it's not too close to the contents if you move the contents down.

@Gurken Khan You probably have some building of the defeated enemy under your control and some ally unit is trying to capture it

Yeah this happens also when some unit try to conquers a building in dispute between 2 allies

I would say that it is most likely that any mod that automates aspects of the game or changes its graphics in such a way that whoever uses it obtains a significant advantage over those who do not use it will be considered unsuitable for use in a competitive environment. That does not necessarily mean not allowing it to be used, but it does mean that its use is confined to "friendly matches", without rating/points or any other type of competition. We could again use as an example the small trees of age of empires 2 that have become a standard and are available to everyone even in competitive environments and, on the contrary, mods that automate aspects of the game in some way have been prohibited, with some exceptions like the cavalry's Auto-explore.

In fact forests with trees with voluminous crowns can be used to hide outposts beneath them. And this at some point is something that one can use to their advantage in certain biomes and not in others. So having the possibility of turning trees into purple sticks or eliminating them with a variable in a configuration file is something that influences the game (or helps to have better woodlines or see enemy armies better). In any case, I brought this example, not with the intention of eliminating that mod or criticizing it, but as another example of how some modifications that may seem simply aesthetic can influence the game.

You have perfectly described one of the advantages it provides. Is it good or bad? It's not the point. The point is that if one user uses it and another doesn't, the user who uses it has an advantage over the other. Are we for or against that? That is the underlying discussion. All I'm saying is: in a competitive environment those criteria have to be clear and there have to be ways to enforce those criteria. And that is why every serious multiplayer game defines what modifications are allowed or not in the competitive environment. I rarely use the word cheater to refer to these advantages and disadvantages problems that certain mods have. But there is something that is very clear: your mod uses macros to automate tasks, moving units automatically at the start of the game without the player having to do nothing more than setting some options before the game. It produces units according to available resources and housekeep and does so automatically. Shares resources automatically and even in numbers that the vanilla version does not allow. There is a very big difference between a player who has a macro that makes those calculations and executes the orders instantly and another player who has to use his head and hands to do it. It is not so difficult to understand and accept. When we move from a GUI modification to automating game commands and functions, then we can no longer simply call that a "GUI modification". proGU: It also has some modifications to the GUI to show inactive units and buildings. Or calculate a K/D ratio to see how you're doing in battle (not sure if you implemented this feature in the end) or be able to share resources by clicking on the player in the boonGUI-based resource table. Features that I particularly find very interesting and valuable for the game. I don't consider myself someone who only seeks to ban features. This is a debate in which everyone has their opinion. But if that's your opinion, there's nothing I can do. I agree. There is no point in carrying out an effort like this. I think it's a matter of working on balance and improving AI. I don't think it's necessary to create a mod to auto-snipe neither In my opinion, this type of thing is important to develop in the vanilla game because otherwise the same thing happens again, those who have and those who do not have the mod. And judging by the events of the last year that will only lead to more divisions.

Pronouncing "zero a dee" sounds so cool to me.

Sounds fair. Then I guess that we agree that without some criteria and mechanisms that limit the use of some types of mod in a competitive environment it's really difficult to create a sense of fairness. Are we? Exactly. It is a standard and is an allowed mod, but not using macros that move units automatically or auto-produce units according to available resources or auto-share resources. And the base game has mechanisms to prevent that. Here, I can't do anything to prevent an opponent from using that kind of mods, which generates an obvious competitive advantage. And since it is possible to see the mods that a host uses, allowing a host to see the mods that players who connect to their game use is a feature that could contribute in this sense compared to something more complex like detecting code injected in Public or some allowed mod. And thank goodness it is not exposed, since it clearly provides a visual advantage. I agree that it is something to keep in mind. At least in the games I've played, colorblind modes usually change the colors of textures or remove certain details from them, but they don't eliminate or modify them completely. Maybe I'm wrong.

Hi, @Bazaar. You can report this here

Of course. I just followed your proposal and wrote down open to any modification I mean things like this. The photo is not of good quality and perhaps cannot be appreciated, but by modifying the trees in this way the visibility of enemy units is greatly facilitated. I have been confusing on this point. I always mean in relation to the competitive environment. I didn't mean that they shouldn't be in mod.io, but I did mean that the base game should have some mechanism to detect mods in use or some type of filter. With the aim of creating a fair competitive environment. Of course, we can hide everything and there are people who will inevitably cheat, hide mods inside others, etc. But anyway, I think it would be nice if at least the host could have some tool to see the mods that others have enabled. I don't see why this couldn't be done, considering it's possible to see the enabled mods someone has when hosting a match. There is no need to participate in tournaments. Even in ranked matches, certain mods cannot be used in AoE. But, in any case, I think it doesn't matter whether or not there is a healthy 0ad competitive scene to define criteria and incorporate certain features into the base game that allow having some kind of restriction to be able to play something like "ranked team games" (which also should be incorporated into ranked 1v1). Yes I know. But I feel that this argument should not be used to avoid trying to do something about it, even to discourage or hinder certain dishonest practices.

I would write the following: no mods that modify aspects of the game such as: moving units automatically; or modify the attacking behavior of units to auto-snipe or similar techniques that grant an advantage in battle; or automatically produce units, technology or phases according to available resources; or automate other aspects of the economy, for example, automatically building houses in a given space; or modify the graphics in such a way as to allow units to be seen under trees or mountains; or that allows the player to see the number of units garrisoned in buildings or ships; or modify unit graphics to highlight certain units so you can attack them and take advantage of it; or that allows automatic sharing of resources; or reveal the map; or notifying about other team events such as obtaining technology, changing phase, population and resources should be allowed in a competitive game unless all parties agree to allow them ---- Some sort of reasonable criteria needs to be established to define when a mod confers an obvious advantage. Otherwise, this dilemma becomes endless and it is clear that everyone is going to define cheating in the way they see fit or that suits them best. And given this situation, I think it is necessary to take charge, make decisions and then evaluate the results. Otherwise we will be debating until the end of time. And in this sense, I would start by applying these criteria to the mods that are signed on mod.io. It is evident that the reduced competitive scenario has suffered a lot of wear and tear as a result of endless discussions in relation to mods that use macros to self-manage aspects of the economy such as the production of units according to available resources, automatic technology production, phase change, automatic resource sharing to allies. Even macros that automatically move units to the selected resource as soon as the game starts... And I don't think it's a matter of majorities either. Since, in a competitive environment, it is very common for players to appeal to any type of external help available to improve their performance. In my personal opinion, a mod that allows you to dedicate yourself to the battle while orders in your base are executed automatically according to the available resources gives you an obvious competitive advantage over those who do not use it. As you well know, this debate occurred in another thread. And then come the arguments: autociv's hotkeys and autoqueue, boonGUI's resource information panel. And instead of establishing criteria we relativize everything according to our convenience. And if that, in addition, is legitimized by the game itself, then there is no valid accusation of "cheat"/ I've discussed this with Atrik in a good way several times on the forum and in-game. Raising several arguments. I have also discussed it in a bad way and, of course, I am not proud of that. I don't think it's the right way. But the truth is that his mod is there and has divided an important group of the community. Unfortunately I didn't get any results. Because there is nothing that can stop the development of this type of tools. I was out of the game for several months and I can't say it's still that way, maybe no one cares anymore or maybe, as a friend of the game told me, everyone cheats and there's nothing we can do about it other than accept it and have fun anyway. At least it would be nice if hosts had tools to detect the mods that others are using in the same way that the host's mods are seen in the lobby. Perhaps, like in Age of Empires 2, there could be a list of mods allowed for "ranked mode" and as many for a non-ranked mode. I know there is no such thing as ranked teamplay but perhaps it is a good thing to implement even if statistics are not incorporated. Perhaps the host may have the option to allow or prohibit subscribed mods. I don't know, they are ideas that I think and share with you. I thought I had witnessed the use of the auto-snipe and apparently it turned out to be nothing and I felt like an idiot. In any case, it seems evident that several players make use of certain features dishonestly... Smaller and much simpler things that can be started to do to contribute to the development of a fair competitive environment. It would be nice if hosts had tools to detect the mods that others are using in the same way that the host's mods are seen in the lobby. Then they could at least ask the player to disable that mod or otherwise not let them play. And although I don't find it entirely desirable given the small player base. At least it's healthier than playing detective to see who uses this or that mod. Smaller and much simpler things that can be done to contribute to the development of a competitive environment before starting to develop much more complex things such as detecting cheats hidden in Public or another allowed mod. After all, most players are not super software developers and, even if they are devs, not everyone will have enough incentive to study the code and develop a cheat. But, if the game itself offers the possibility of using available mods with the features I am naming, then it becomes much easier for anyone to access those resources.

I don't know where you draw that conclusion from. And it is in fact a gross simplification of what have been long threads discussing this topic. I have argued with you in a thousand ways respectfully and I have given you plenty of arguments but you don't give a darn and have come to make totally absurd comparisons in order to justify yourself. On several occasions you have had ironic and mocking responses towards people who have spoken to you respectfully, so play the victim all you want, you don't move anyone. You have not stopped using your mod on my hosts even though I have been very explicit that I am against the use of that mod in matches where others do not use it. The current state of the game is very convenient for those who use this type of mods since the host has no option to prevent it beyond banning those users. Even if you ban those users, you must first know that those users use that mod, which is also quite difficult to know, unless said users say so or host a match and then it is seen that they use it, or starting watch replays like a paranoid (unless those users uses quickstart then it is very simple to realize, like you does) And then you say "you can still hide one mod inside another, the game is full of cheats and you guys complain about my mod." You try to cancel an argument using another type of failure as an example. The advantages that your mod grants are very clear and you appeal to all kinds of resources to relativize those arguments. Let us continue this thread with the initial objectives. There are other threads to discuss your great achievements.

The guy can literally do nothing for the first 10 seconds of the game and says it's the same as having a hotkey xD The guy can set some percentages and a macro will auto-produce according to his available resources and houses, automatically reset the production queue, automatically auto-detect inactive barracks to activate production in them. But for him it's the same as a hotkey. Atrik is not going to stop no matter how many arguments are given to him. Other alternatives must be found to avoid this type of blackmail. A substantial improvement is needed in the comprehensive security of the entire game. Strong mechanisms to prevent the whim of 2 or 3 individualists from destroying decades of community development. None of this is going to be achieved by stubbornly arguing against a wall. Maybe development team is happy with this, or they don't even care about the competitive multiplayer scope of the game In any case, we were discussing nice features to have but now we have just another endless discussion about that shiitmod thank youuu

Yes that would be the best thing to do. Maybe animations of infantry fighting can be re-used to save some work.

This is very cool feature I've seen for the first time being used in StarCraft I and it would be nice to have it. I guess it would be easier to implements in buildings like blacksmiths were it's only necessary to animate a smoke. I wonder what could be the animatio in barracks. I guess it would be much more difficult. Maybe some object like flag or something (flags also used for garrison so maybe it will bring some confusions). About This could be also a good feature. I'm not really sure about it. I personally assign numbers to my group of buildings and then I have to look one by one with mouse to find out wich one has its queue stopped. I'm starting to avoid using autoqueue as before. And now I try to make rounds of productions. Thats forces me to be more aware of my production all the time and make a habit. I find that I get better production'results this way than using autoqueue. Please, don't make this just anooother boring proGUI's discussion. All the arguments for and against have been stated and we end up in an endless discussion. If there are people who cannot/will not understand the difference between preserving the manual aspect of certain economic decisions and an automatic production controller, a new endless thread will not be the resolution. Let's think ahead

You are completely changing the focus of my intervention. In this and the other thread about proGUI my focus has always been on automation and how all those mods that automate aspects of the game significantly change the gaming experience, as well as being a real advantage against those who don't use it. A totally irrelevant argument. All games have weaknesses and cheating is possible. That has nothing to do with the approach I'm trying to give you. And this weak mechanic that we talked about that leads to the overexploitation of the snipe tactic can be counteracted, as already said 20 times, by modifying the characteristics of the units to improve the combat dynamics. My question was always the same. What kind of game do we want? But all this no longer matters, the discomfort of many users about the use of these mods and the impossibility of doing something about it is real and it is something that I only see as possible to be solved with some feature that is implemented in vanila to truly be able to know the mods that clients use when entering a host. Because whatever we say, the advantages are very clear. I have tried proGUI, no one has told me about it. And the people who use it themselves admit that, used well, it generates a very clear economic and time advantage due to the automations that we all had already mentioned many times. As I said, before accusing anyone, it is important to gather more evidence. But there have already been cases of games where this error has been shown to certain players: "Failed to initiate autoSnipeMod ogg data at: mods/autosnipe/mod.ogg" And one could argue that anyone could have created a mod with this name just to spread these rumors. But it would seem too sophisticated (and sad) to me. Of course. And I don't doubt your intentions at all, but I don't agree with the methods you implement to improve the game and in this I try to be completely honest and constructive in my comments. You will notice, for example, that I never use the word cheat and this is no coincidence. But I think that what you do is individually create a mod to modify aspects of the game that you don't like and although this game is based on mods and anyone can and is allowed to do it, certain aspects that your mod incorporates change and influence it completely. in the gaming experience and in equal conditions in the competitive field. I didn't accuse you. In relation to you, I only mentioned that you yourself say in this thread that you have emulated autosnipe with satisfactory results. Your words, not mine.

Yes, I have evidence. But I won't show it until I have collected enough and there are no doubts left. And because I don't want to compromise anyone who is innocent either. On the other hand, the author of the post himself confesses to having done it with satisfactory results in the first message of this thread. So I don't know why you doubt that such a thing exists either. Many solutions have been proposed. Starting with not focusing on continuing to automate aspects of the game but on working better on combat dynamics based on the characteristics of the units. (damage, resistance, hp, units counter dynamcis like AoE, movement speed...). The fact that you don't mention a single one is another demonstration that certain players simply haven't taken any of these inputs. But I do agree with you on one thing: this is an endless and, I might add, pointless debate. Because at the end of the day, and with honorable exceptions, it seems that the "external collaborators" are doing whatever they want depending on their programming skills and are not having a community approach to the development of the game. You may call me naive, but I believed that was the true spirit of a community-developed open source game project.

Ofc not. And right now there is people using it agains people who are not aware of this. And right now there are people using autosnipe against players who are not notified of this. There are people using auto start and eco automation against people who don't agree with it and can't do anything about it. And the arguments are always the same: "I don't want to repeat the same action 100 times. I don't want to worry about finding the barracks inactive, it is a repetitive and unnecessary action." As if a macro that makes instant decisions, instant auto batch number according resources wasn't a totally clear advantage. What will be the next one? teleportation through buildings with just a few clicks? hehe... And then they say: "then don't use autociv, because it adds hotkeys that the game does not have and that is a great advantage too" comparing what is a standard in any SERIOUS RTS to the same as these macros that completely change the gaming experience. And that's what it's all about after all, isn't it?. What kind of game do we want? People with such valuable knowledge, which could contribute to the development of the core of the game, prefer to individually resolve their own expectations of the gaming experience. I must say, I find it quite disappointing

I bring you a not so popular band with a fleeting existence of almost two years but one of the best Argentine progressive rock ensembles, locally characterized as "Tango Rock" and led by the master of Argentine rock, Charly Gracía. Always better using headphones

Yeah, this sucks. The community are so angry right now. These misers CEOs... Aren't they already rich enough?

It would be great to make some Reels to catch new followers!

Thanks @freyyja ! Thats a huge amount of house plants! Of course I'd love to see some of them. I am also dabbling in indoor plants but I only have a few and it has been difficult for me to get them to thrive. The longest lasting is a Potus that has been with me for almost 15 years and I take care of it like a son because it was a gift from my mother.

In this region of the world, spring is beginning to arrive, and with it, all the plants in my garden have started to bloom. The most beautiful flower I have is undoubtedly the Mburucuyá. Here we also call it "Passionflower," and we love it very much because it is home to the "Espejito" butterfly. During the spring, many "Espejitos" flutter around the Mburucuyá, creating a very beautiful and calming image. Furthermore, it has a symbiotic relationship with the bumblebee. Its flowers have evolved specifically to deposit pollen on the bumblebee's back when they land on them while seeking to feed on nectar. Here's a short stop-motion video I made of the first flower that bloomed. The Mburucuyá is a plant from South America, specifically from the Paraná River basin region. This plant has beautiful flowers and produces fruits called "mburucuyá" that are used in juices and desserts due to their sweet and sour taste. Additionally, in this region, it is traditionally used as a natural remedy for insomnia and anxiety. VID-20230909-WA0011.mp4

The most importants are hotkeys to build structures and some unit selections like, most wounded units, only cavalry and so on