Atrik

Players threatening to keep a game paused or leaving it unless a spec gets banned happened every day I was active, including against Geriatrix. Do every incident feel like needing moderation? I don't criticize @leopard nor @Norse_Harold for getting pissed off Geriatrix behavior or posting opinion on forum. I just don't see how or why this would be moderated. I'm not holding grudge against you @leopard, can't see why you come to state this. Of course it's funny to me to see @BreakfastBurrito_007 calling on moderation after being an actor in a defamation campaign against me for over a year. Reminder that he spread lies and rumors every time I saw him logged in, at the point it felt he was only logging in, not to play a single game, but just to talk about me. He would literally: log in, spectate a coupe of games I'm in, make his comments as spectator in global channel, log out. Repeating this multiple times a week. Same for his brother. Sad but hilarious in the same time.

Breakfastburrito continuously spread lies and he also motivated some players to exert similar "hostage situation" that you describe above but against me. I didn't felt that he was breaking any therms of uses doing so, and even probably that this was a freedom he should have to express his opinion (even if he had admittedly had 0.000 knowledge about what he was talking about). Therefor I wouldn't even got the idea to call on moderation. Now he calls on moderation against Geriatrix... @Norse_Harold you are likely to take his side on this, but Geriatrix not doing anything that seems to deserve a moderator's attention, and breakfastburrito is only getting a taste of what he was so keen to get me to live anyway... In my opinion @Norse_Harold you shouldn't get too much into the weeds of moderating everything in random game hosts because it's simply impossible and you can't format every behaviors under rules. Well, I already know we disagree on this point but still wanted to write it again in defense of Geriatrix's freedoms.

I made a mod that fix this problem called "Resize Queue", it will: resume production if it get interrupted by lack of resources resize batch to adapt to resource availability You can get it on the mod downloader or on gitlab if you want to play with friends: https://gitlab.com/4trik/resizequeue/-/archive/master/resizequeue-master.zip Another mod for smoother production is progui (https://gitlab.com/4trik/proGUI) that allow managing all production buildings from a single panel.

https://github.com/0ad/0ad/blob/master/binaries/data/mods/public/simulation/templates/template_unit_infantry_ranged.xml Can't adding it here just work?

You really just can make up stuff to try prove your points. Since now talk about my gamplay specifically with females I'll explain the principle with witch I play: You don't need to aim for a specific army strength, as to win your opponent, you need a stronger army relative to him, not absolute (seems obvious right?, well it's not for most that will always fight maxed out). Therefor if you can send your forces early with upgrades but you are keeping a high female count to keep up eco, you can win over a opponent aiming for a later 'ready' timing. Instead of taking off the pressure your opponent when you need wood (by recalling CS to gather it). It's better to just make more females, even in late game. CS gathering wood are just a loss of efficiency since they are just costlier units that gather at about the same rate. When booming, if you have some hunt, making cavs instead of inf makes food even 'cheaper' then wood (gathering food is very efficient with cavs), and cavs can be used harrass your opponent. Since food is now so cheap, making females is even more worth it. This is how you can storm your opponent with cav harrassment and chain up with some rams early enough. You might have 100-120 females min 13-14 but you got rams AND harassed your opponent all game AND you have a bunch of cavs that are a bit stronger then inf. Sometimes if your ally isn't going to help you until himself is maxed out, you have no choice then you make the exact same strategy. Likewise, you are likely you meet opponent with the "classical" army size, so if you don't know when to retreat, just copying the "classical" army strength is also a good choice. Theses are the reasons why players locked in the local optimum of 60/200 in my opinion, as myself have experienced the need to going for this for the reasons above. Females ARE more cost efficient then CS in theory, so ofc that the reasons they aren't used more comes from other reasons then 'it's the better play to make only 60'.

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\