Atrik

If you need a reason to nerf cavalry capture rate you could also say that it's not as convenient to raid a buildings with cavalry. As for swords vs spears, of course against infantry, swords are better. But spears are still the 'alpha' cav as they would counter other cavs, and do pretty much well against infantry in the same time.

Champ spear cav is just more available and is also the champ cav for the civilsations who have buffed champ cavs; such as Persians, Seleucid and to a lesser extent Gauls. I guess champs cavs are really just slightly too good of an option too often, because of the mobility and strength, and capture rate. The problem really is that the critical mass of a champ spam being unstoppable is reached too early. If some suggest that they should cost 2 pop, I think it would be too much of a nerf. Spears could have increased counter damage (restore it to x3 in com mod as an example, no idea why it was brought down to x2.5) and maybe cost slightly increased, like 100metal instead of 80. Also all cavs could have 50% only of the capture rate of their equivalent infantry.

If the prepare time is reset every time a unit receive a order like halt, target, or move by itself, as I I think it is, then it's the main delay during witch overshoots occurs.

I've tested for pikemen and crossbows and both overshoot cav running away. Pikes still hit in the wind and the cav far away takes the hit. Again not complaining about it, this is better then if the pike would never land a hit, but if your patch impact performance for no effects, then I don't understand the point. Maybe limit the range check for only the units that have the slowest attacking units (crossbow and pikes aren't included).

I guess it's not going to kill performances but since most players agree performances is the priority, I guess @real_tabasco_sauce should not add it to community mod. It's only making any differences for bolts and catas. For all others units, there isn't anything changed about overshooting (witch is also good for playability). Part of the overshooting was due to unit taking into account target movement and will still be added to unit range, therefor extending overall max range. This is unaffected by the patch. The other part of when unit is targeting a unit moving away and getting out of range is also, from my tests, unchanged. Only bolts and catas might interrupt their attack if the target move away early enough.

Yes! For poison just replace by "Poisoned".

No it's only poison, fire cavalry are decent units to take down buildings thanks to fire damage.

Try to add this within <Resistance><Entity> <ApplyStatus> <Burning> <Duration>0.0</Duration> <BlockChance>1</BlockChance> </Burning> </ApplyStatus>

Anyways, I think overshooting is a necessary evil to make the game playable. I though we already discussed this @real_tabasco_sauce. If the range check was done prior to the exact time where attack start to repeat, you fixed a great bug! But it's not changing overshooting, witch is also good. (Haven't checked your patch, just making assumptions based on what you write above).

Interesting but If attacks aren't interrupted when a unit get out of range, what exactly prevent overshooting?

@Emacz 's mod introduce a lot of changes that makes you play differently then with usual vanilla/com mod civs (In witch all civs can be played nearly identically). You can have a great time having to think about optimal times to attack with this new mechanics, and very often, it is leaning toward you attacking early on, because of the slow economy of Sparta as an example. You also have a lot of changes on how you balance your economy with Spartans. When successful, you might manage to get a small group of elite units capable to fight off a player that had a much larger economy then you, right before his economic dominance become a problem. On the other hand, the community mod champions in p1 are only viable on very specific map/settings. The only times I felt they would be good is on "fortress" map where you start with extra stone and metal from treasures, and have a market to buy more metal from others players selling metal for food/wood.

@Acero for now/this alpha the mod above do the job. It is safe and it only change 2 lines in gamesetup and absolutely doesn't interact, or interfere with any WFG service, and certainly not even it's rating system, as Dunedan seems to have made the assumption of. I think, in general, making an opinion built on assumptions isn't too op.

Hi @AInur, thanks for the mod. It might help players with ratings fix the rejoining game bug. Your mod is also much more compact then the one Kampot made although it's also because you don't have any presets options, but that's neat.

commands.txt @BreakfastBurrito_007 In this replay, I make continuous cavalry production p1 to p3, and continuously exert pressure using autoqueue rather then autotrain. As you can see, my eco is only slightly impacted, while a player rated 2000 is dominated and can't grow. This one is quite good, but I have plenty of others replay like this where this very technique of mine is used successfully without autotrain. As you can imagine, the difference between resizable batch production and fixed production isn't going to affect one's gameplay, nor define his chances of succeeding in a game. The 'advantage' isn't noticeable by any means other then watching how buildings handle production and conclude that it is theoretically more optimized.

You spectated enough games where I had it off, to know you lie. Give me 1 example of technique I use with autotrain that doesn't work as well with autoqueue.

I just don't understand why some would care so much for something that can only be noticed by watching production building behavior. I don't care and rather embrace inflicting myself penalties (like sending some starting resources, having the newest teammates...), obviously I don't use these features for the 'advantages' but because they make the game more interesting. This makes that debate asymmetrical since one side will argue about the (unnoticeable) advantages while some just wish to play the game without shallow clicky 'mechanics'. If a feature can automate some unrewarding actions or empower user controls, I will be interested in having them. One is free to use or not, ban in own host... These debates just get slippery when a group of people will start to spread lies, call for global ban, or insist on the topic being some kind of moral matter. Well, we already debated all of this, but now the thing is: some aren't happy with the fact all hosts don't enforce this ban. It's absolutely not a awareness problem. Nothing is done from most users to hide they use this mod's feature, I and others are often rather forthcoming, wish others would actually use it too, to make games more interesting. + you have a dedicated personnel to announce players using this mod and making them laudatory introductions : @BreakfastBurrito_007.

Imagine caring about Quickstart and making some drama about it. Still remember that game where i sent you 200 resources at start and then I crushed you. You r brain just got on the path to seek excuses for our level difference. No 7 resources gain from Quickstart is going to make any differences. I disable Quickstart in chrstgr host when i think about it. If you can't stand the 'unfair advantage' just fcking download the mod at once, it's not even form me so you can feel good about this; If you have so much fun setting the rally points fast fast at game start, then good for you, why would you jealous me then?

I don't understand what exactly you are talking about, you have rules in your hosts that I follow. And I've never insulted @chrstgtr in game/lobby for banning me from his room as @hyperion is assuming. I remember. I just asked for explanations on the reason of the ban. The only times I maybe did insult @chrstgtr it was on the forum after he was twisting my words to unreasonable extent.

Sure, if I can! I know this proposal would help for a lot of things others then just the transparency benefits. Too often some players crash or oos for having known (by the community) conflicting mods, outdated map mods (listed as compatible) etc..

This features have 50% chance to make a fart if no host use, or 50% chance to shatter even more MP if some hosts get to believe this will be some kind of functional anti-cheat. Only 10% of regular MPs use vanilla UI; therefor in combination with new mod.io rules, it will be impossible to join a host that doesn't have the exact same mods then yourself if the option is checked. Given that most agree that the splitting due to com mod is kinda bad, now we will potentially have one for autociv, boongui, progui, godeyes, ffm_whynotifeveritgetsonmodio... Any combination of theses... Just to "make cheating a little harder".

I only wish for him to correct me but his proposal suggest a single checkbox "all or nothing" the disallow unsigned mod. So no my suggestions isn't weakening it, as host, and every player, can review each others mods. This would be nice to incorporate, although it does not prevent encapsulating code within another mod Indeed it won't, but I didn't pretend it would. It would be just be better in my opinion for all player to be able to see each others mod rather then having a supposedly official enforcement option that would be hated, by maybe ~50% of players I play with regularly since AFAIK they use 1 or more unsigned mods. I would like to report myself for using progui, the most harmful cheat in 0ad, please show me the sanction you deem adapted to such infamy. Ban my account "Atrik_III"?

If it's an option, it can be nice. But (obviously) it's nothing as good as just making every player mods visible in the game room. The latter also being probably simpler to make, and more useful as some host could maybe want to ban some signed mods. Using unsigned mods isn't uncommon and a lot of them don't even make the slightest debate. As for solving cheating, I still don't understand why you think this would prevent it. I think I can affirm that we are indeed talking about a single mod. Even in your cited example you might point out to instructions on how to modify a (signed) mod to reveal some infos. That is actually an example of cheat/modifications that would not be impacted by the option. Even if you consider adding some stuff like checksums I don't think cheats wouldn't find their way through it, easily since it's an even an open source game. So again, this feature would be to disallow (a) mod, not prevent cheats. Because we love so much to throw cheat every sentence to look very smart, the debate will hardly evolve around more useful matters. I think there never was a single threat about this mod saying something relatable beside "cheat cheat". Even when talking about introducing features, it's about preventing cheats, and the suggestions are totally biased toward preventing mods, not cheats.

So you want some new checksums on each mod to be performed upon login or something? I've just tested and modified signed incompatible mods are joinable by players with the original one as I was expecting. So I don't understand what you mean, I'm probably missing something. Wanting the game to introduce a features that clearly will downgrade user experience, just to attempt to enforce a ban on a single mod is totally out of measure, add to it that (what I would consider) the ultimate cheat is available from command prompt; some hacks a widely spread, and now it's just ridiculous, yes. Sorry if that sounds like mocking but clearly I can't even have a clue of wtf is that hysteria about progui. Players that already can't bear such unfair advantage provided by the mod are already successful in enforcing players not to use them in there host....

This idea is clearly not to make cheating harder as it has been seems so many times that real cheats are just undisplayed mods (hidden in other mods, or are direct modifications of the game...). As well, you can cheat in 100% freshly downloaded vanilla just using the command prompt to reveal the map for example. Some other ideas were also: get rid of compatibility check all together, forced on by default. If we want to prevent cheating, atomizing user experience with mods to 'make progui usage a little harder' is top priority and obviously worth it in my opinion. We should go ahead and do this. Let's not make something that actually improve usability like tooltips/lists of mods for all players in a room, let's just ban instead. Too scary to rely on individuals opinions, so we need to enforce things globally like commies.

Skipping replying to degenerate accusations of dishonor and what not... Not even sure some actually play MP... The version on mod.io is technically compatible. It has however the compatibility check turned on. If it wasn't, it would have been better to measure the popularity of the features in the mod. And why not consider adding some to the game. Some are pretty obvious like idle building notifications, list of all units... I already pointed this out multiple times elsewhere. Boongui top panel is also much more modern looking then the vanilla one, same for fgod panels... Now about the famous auto-trainer, it's also making the game much nicer to play for some players. You get increased control over production and it works seemingly compared to vanilla auto-queue. It's quite a bit unforeseen to have a single panel to control all buildings in AOE type rts but this too isn't that stretched off to think of an adaptation for vanilla ui. This would probably not be the case at least for the foreseeable future in 0ad, but, despite a few people pretending the opposite, auto-trainer doesn't provide any substantial advantages. If you turn on vanilla auto-queue in all buildings you will have the same APM required then having to manage auto-trainer. Sure, the batchs resize themselves and you don't have to panic when the game throw you the "Insufficient resources" error message yet it's not going to impact your game performance noticeably. Theoretically the dynamic batch would be optimized, but in practice left-over resources just get consumed seconds later by another building, and overall it's not that much harder to consume resources with any of theses systems.