Atrik

85 females booms aren't uncommon afaik. Even if it was, wouldn't prove anything. Better meta could very well be discovered and unoptimal metas in a community with very few players wouldn't be surprising. Well that's one con on insisting to be silly right? You won't try to understand what Stockfish does exactly like all 1v1 you spectate with him against borg and the only commentary you can make are about mod usage, because that's accessible to your current game understanding. Stockfish was queuing females with vanilla autoqueue 1 per 1 btw.

The fastest population grow where literally made by Stockfish with 170 females. And more females very likely make you faster even without fertility festival. Maybe you just base your analysis on ad-hoc games or just look at population count as metric for booming. Even to gather minerals females would be better if you just consider unit cost and efficiency.

Maybe this is mostly just about how players like to play : 60/200 females. I guess the theory is that you put 60 females on food and then only mens on wood but always felt like soldiers on wood was already a waste of resources. Females feel balanced to me, maybe rounding wood gather rate to match soldiers one could be enough (+8% wood gather rate). What I regret about "booming=turtling" is more about civs that force you to build a fort to unlock your hero for example. @wowgetoffyourcellphone suggested that heros buildings had their own class somewhere, would make sens then to have one for all civs.

@Player of 0AD also has very high tribute sharing stats. He just seek efficiency when asking resources.

I regret the divides in this community, I had my own issues with some other members but @leopard isn't a problem (replying to the @Geriatrix comment in the other thread), I do think he is even reasonable and is simply trying to fix things in this thread. @Geriatrix is one of those players that do enrich the metas of this game, with his experience he can come up with atypical strategies and mechanics so one must try to understand that making some concessions on disagreements is important to keep some good active players around. This would also have been advised to keep in mind for Piplox, myself, (Stockfish next target on the list, visibly), that were harassed by the same 'players with beginner level', until they leave. The bro couple have fun propagating lies and @#$% on logic even when faced with empirical profs they are dead wrong.

Funny @real_tabasco_sauce denies his behavior now . Not even sure he ever spectated a game with someone using the mod and him not making sarcastic comments. Anyway he won now, he successfully created the illusion of a divide that must fight each others, fueled by his comments in game chat and provocations on the forum. Every single time someone will react to his stupid, uninformative comment and it ends up with a endless back and forth.

The problem is that you dismiss what I say every time, saying it's intelligible and I make no sens because you don't understand. @Norse_Harold can you rename this topic "Yet another useless thread and how to NOT attract more players" and close it please? Nothing interesting ever came out of these debates.

Not the first time you dismiss what I say pretending it's not intelligible to you. I was able to predict (and be the first to be vocal about) some of the bad ideas you thrown in com mod, what did you do then? Been dismissive. I can't predict what would be the consequences of making units acquire (and follow if out of range) targets that aren't the closest one. In your thread about it, you don't discuss any potential consequences other then what happens in your selected scenario. Witch makes me think you again didn't try to think it through. As I already said there are already bugs when pressing halt in formations where some units will target entities that aren't the closest to them. Instead of fixing sniping by suggesting a feature that user can control, you make range manager less precise, equivalent to adding a random imprecision/randomizing unit targeting.

@real_tabasco_sauce Funny that even for sniping, instead of fixing it with a obvious feature you try to add a arbitrary formula that will probably just induce more unpredictability (I could be wrong that it won't have any side effects, but still the idea itself already sounds a bit fuzzy to me). So, for a nub like you the best version of the game would : - Have units as dumb as possible - Lowest means of control for users - Randomized unit behaviors So now it make sens to me that you hate progui that provides : - Smarter production (adapts to resources, can resume after shortage...) - More means control (graphically control over all production variable for user) - Precise production output (matching user inputs) I won't pretend the autotrain panel nailed the best production feature that could be but sure enough it's 100x more enjoyable then vanilla where there is frustrations of not being able to do a variety of things, and you need to figure out workarounds. Yet you'll pretend that because it's 'automation', it's like having a bot playing for you, while you actually have improved control over your production. It's also 100% graphical, so most players trying it, figure out how to use it immediately.

What is shallow is to keep game economy and battle mechanics relying purely on cps bearing no decision making, not the reverse.

Against people who will just give a answer to anything you say by making up a new lies, you should insult him for your own relief: It's impossible to think I try to hide progui, but you can still pretend so to new comers. Maybe you know and is scared that what leopard said could be true: if the game implemented a production features close to progui then the game would be more attractive to new players. In that case you'll be again proven wrong about something you was so sure about and just failed to listen to anything else but yourself.

I wonder who started to mention progui in a off topic AGAIN. The same guy who come spec games, (but rarely plays any), yet every f*** time in the chat, start talking about progui. No idea why he did make it a so important mission for himself to make sure that anybody who haven't heard about this mod is exposed to his comments on it first. As he even admitted it to me. Just on the forum I can't count threads where he comes in a totally unrelated threads like this one and start making a comment containing always the two words : progui and cheat. Even if nobody takes the bait, he'll try again a few comments later.... O.P.

You can prove that autotrain doesn't make a difference to thoses folks, they'll still have fun making tribal comments when you'll use it (As I did repetitively too). They probably jealous you because of your level. Most don't have any understanding of the game mechanics anyway (and especially not real_tabasco) so be assured that at least, while they'll have something to blame, they'll never be even close to grasp how are you 1k elo more then them.

It already often occurs that when pressing formations, some units target totally random entities (including buildings, and not even the one that are closest). I can't figure out why that is but it's a annoying bug because half your units will run to go capture a house instead of attacking units (in their really attack range). I fear that adding arbitrary functions as you suggest won't make unit behavior more intuitive. What's needed to mitigate overkills ect might just be a feature. With more experience into the game now I believe a good feature would be the ability to spread damage accross a selection of enemy units with box selection. Description: 1: Select units to order (your archers for example) 2: Use the feature's hotkey or button 3: Box select over enemy units => Your selected archers will target units in the box. Example, if you have 60 archers and hovered 30 enemy units with the box selection then 2 archers will attack each enemy. This feature would, in my opinion, give a counter-action possible to unit dances, simplify sniping and in general make micro probably more interesting.

There are in every single rts excepted maybe in some aoe. Cast time in rts where you have some 'magic' involved, delay bombarding a area in moderns and futuristic themed rts... You could also allow forts to be built 50% faster. More enjoyable for the one building it, it's no fun to have to wait 1min for it to go up. It's exactly the same reasons why bolts need to take time to set up. They are extremely strong, so they need to give room for counter-action. I actually didn't expect my comment to have any effect on you pushing it. I'm already playing bolts often and will be one the most advantaged by this modification. This will add (another) archive that I warned you about a change that would be bad and you ignoring it. Please note I mean no disrespect, this situation simply arise from the fact that you less experienced from playing less. I will regret, however, the subsequent patch (community mod 0.26.10?) that would nerf the damage of bolts because of them being too strong when being used as replacement for ranged unit. I prefer their current balance that give them their role as support/artillery unit.

In plenty of games, unit abilities with delays are prized as skill. Increasing maneuverability of bolts make them more susceptible to be spammable as a main force alike siege towers. The pack/unpack time differentiate catas and bolts by giving opportunities to opponents for responses (units are vulnerable to cavs because of this pack/unpack time). Having to carefully plan position of catas/bolts is fun. I play blots ~80% of games they are available for my civ and I enjoy it because it's not failsafe. To counter bolts, I often see my opponent running out of their range (at the cost of retreating and losing few soldiers) with a -50% pack/unpack time (remember to move bolts you'll get this delay twice) this evasive technique would be seriously nerfed/useless. Kindly reconsider. Crossbow champs are already an option for players that don't want to bother with pack time, no need make the bolts too similar to them. Spartans and Athens seems to have some big changes too Would be indeed interesting to have them tested.

I won't pretend understanding all the code but from the constants names it seems that multiplayer games already run on 500ms turns lengths. static const int DEFAULT_TURN_LENGTH_MP = 500; //Multiplayer turn length is ms. static const int DEFAULT_TURN_LENGTH_SP = 200; //Singleplayer https://github.com/0ad/0ad/commit/cdc07b66ea53b769265a86a4fb918b2816e4fc59 Would be nice to have displayed the player throttling the game in the gui.

@nababuDownloading it from your browser then installing it manually seems a quicker solution to me. I think it should work for you. 1. Download: https://g-5.modapi.io/v1/games/5/mods/2144305/files/4964810/download 2. Unzip in mod folder: System Default location for the /0ad/mods/folder Linux: ~/.local/share/0ad/mods/ macOS: ~/Library/Application\ Support/0ad/mods/ Windows: ~\Documents\My Games\0ad\mods\

Siege towers can be a bit annoying because they are hit and run units. If you remove the pack/unpack time of bolts, that would also allow hit and run.... But with much more range, and aoe... Bolts are the most interesting units right now because they are challenging.

You don't play/spec enough games. If you can plan repack few seconds ahead of infantry movements, they are even op on open terrain. In dense terrain, it's easy to place them in a neat spot. The wheeled onagres will be problematic for the same reasons if they don't have any weaknesses of the same kind. If you have a ranged aoe unit that can retreat easy, then you don't give much counter actions possible to your opponent. Siege weapons should be carefully trained as support for main forces, if the meta would be to spam any of them, I think it's a fail of balance.

They are used. They are just high risk high reward units. Easy to lose, but if you manage to get them on a good safe spot, they are extremely effective. And they are indeed effective against compact enemy formations. If they didn't have pack-unpack time, they will just be broken, and a too easy replacement for ranged units. I guess this is why hans don't have access to their wheeled bolt shooters, they are just too op.

@real_tabasco_sauce Most agree that A26 was reasonably balanced, units, buildings, even civs... If your changes introduces new game-play opportunities, I think you should consider making sure your suggested changes are consistent. First let me remind you that I don't try to just be negative as I already said I liked the melee re-balance, and in 26.8, I like the cc arrow cap that open up for more rushing opportunities in 'mid game', (min 7-12). My own 100females squadrons are a bit more threaten then before which is fair. However I do regret how 26.8 wasn't though out much and clearly was pushed to fix the unbalances introduced by non-random arrows. If for reasons non-random arrows will not be reverted despite the pushbacks, I would still like to suggest give back a role to towers. After thoughts, nerfing them was maybe good to avoid stalling turtle game. But now they are just always a bad investment. Here is my line of reasoning: if the maximum power dps of a tower is nerfed by that much (reminder garrison contribute to -50% dps in 26.8), the associated cost of building the towers or upgrading them should have been scaled in consequences. Here some ideas: Sentry towers build cost reverted back to 100wood, or even lowered to 80wood. Share Carrier Pigeon tech for towers. Sentries, Crenellations techs cost at least cost -50% since they provide -50% dps from before. Han great tower and even Iberian tower need adjusted default arrow count as they are a big investments for half the max dps now. Thanks for reading.

Thanks @SKAcz. It was my bad again, sorry. I've just fixed that for nomad.