TheCJ

Well, you can just take a look at the biomes? Compared to temperate, which is the default in most tgs I played, Aegean-Anatolian has less dense forests and less hunt, Subalpine is pretty similar, Arctic has less dense forests and hunt that fights back, Rhine Valley (Fall) is pretty similar, India has elephants and massive trees, Nubia has no wood, Sahara also has no wood, Sudanian Savanna also has elephants and little wood, Eurasian Steppe has small trees which you can build buildings on. Cant give you percentages though, sorry. I think metal and stone mines are pretty similar in every biome.

Well, we're having these kinds of discussions precisely because we want everybody to have fun playing this game and not just a small set of extremely good players This I would agree with. There are a lot of tactics one can do (or atleast try) in the early game if "normal booming" seems too boring. But normal booming really doesnt take high APM; Just looking at some replays on the replay pallàs, normal APM values are between 20 and 40. For starcraft, an APM of 80 is considered low (afaik, I'm no sc expert though). I don't believe this to be generally true. The game can't be too slow, or it will be boring, even for a casual player. Of course, it can't be too fast either, and the most enjoyable pace for a casual player will be slower than the most enjoyable pace for a very competitive player, that much is true. But I don't think 0ad should be much slower than it already is, even for casual players. But that's... precisely the problem, isn't it? Of course it is theoretically possible to lenghten the training times to your suggested values while still keeping 0ad fun and unique. But in order to do that, we would have to know exactly which other changes are necessary to achieve such a goal. Just changing the train time doesn't work, the players don't like it, it isnt fun. Then we would have to find out why its no fun; do the units die too quickly, so you can't reach high pop, do the buildings take too long, do they not deal enough damage... who knows. And if we did manage to find out what we would have to change aswell, we would still need to tweak the balance. (as an example, lets say we find out long train times dont work because units die too quickly, then we still need to figure out how to make all units die slower without destroying the balance between the units.) Tl;dr: @chrstgtr basically wanted to tell you that it isnt that simple, just changing the train time value will not work, finding out how to make it work is not that easy. Lastly, in addition to such a change being a lot of work, the arguments supporting such a decision are not very conclusive.

This I have to disagree with. I do not think a fast game necessarily means that "the fastest clicks win". Especially because of the batch training mechanic, 0ad is very fast (in that you can get a lot of population in a short amount of time), but doesnt need a lot of clicks (one click every, 35-40 seconds? for groups of five for every barracks?). The only other rts I played (AoE2) is very slow paced in comparison (booming in 0ad means you are full pop before 14:00. Booming in AoE2 starts at ~14:00 when you reach AoE2s phase 3), but needs a lot more clicks.

I would agree with you @Thorfinn the Shallow Minded, if it wasnt for the performance issue in large (4v4) multiplayer. When the game basically runs at half speed, you have 16 irl seconds for a women and 20 irl seconds for a soldier. Also, even in small games, where the lag is not so bad, the batch training makes things a lot easier, because you only have to queue up one batch every 20-40s. Sometimes even an entire minute (when you manage to queue up 10 women). And since you dont have to assign them individually (you can just send them all to wood or all to food), its basically one action every 20s.

Indeed, that strategy sounds like a solid basis. A few additions: I normally delete some women to make siege, and heros dont take up population space. I'd advise you against that in a normal mainland teamgame, as traders are too slow and defensive structures too weak, so even 3-4 cavalry can take out basically all trade.

Well @Deicide4u, according to my experience, the strategy that works most often is just making as many citizen soldiers as possible, until you reach 200 pop for the first time, then you can start "sprinkling in" champions (as many as possible) and fill "the rest" of your pop with citizen soldiers (if your units die fighting and you cant replace them entirely with champs). That works pretty well in games with up to decent players. You wont win against real pros with that, and I have no idea about the AI, though

@Classic-Burger The historical mod has three main goals; - Being more historical (some units should not be in the civs they are in) - Differentiating the civs more (you cant play the same strategy with every civ in the historical mod) - Being more balanced

what do you mean by that? Sorry, english is not my first language. Google says "riven by" means something like "split apart"? Do you have the impression that our community is falling apart because of cheating?

I cannot fathom how you come to that conclusion, given that every pro in this game seems to agree that champion cavalry spearman are overpowered.

All of this essentially just means "Dont change anything"... ... except maybe add a convenience feature, that lets hosts list what mods they allow. I have no idea how you would add the "automatically honor those policies", as that is literally the same as adding some anti-cheat system, no? If the host declares "no mods" and you somehow force all clients that join to honor this policy, thats an anti-cheat system. Ah, btw, I agree with @WiseKind. I believe that at this point in time, there is no change needed to address "cheating" in any way. Any energy spent on that would be better spent on improving the balance and performance, adding to the content (through maps, scenarios, civs) or just... playing the game.

darn, @WiseKind got time on his hands and a fire in his heart. If you were to become a programmer for 0ad, you could have such a positive impact on this project (not saying you aren't having a positive impact right now). My good fella @WiseKind, I gotta say, we ain't gettin nowhere. This thread's lookin productive to ya? Must be cause' its yer first. The main problem is precisely that we can not agree on what is cheating and what is not. You are truly correct with what you said about us not having to subscribe to any specific notion of what constitutes cheating. Indeed, we can make up what cheating is to 0ad. But to actually create a definition of "cheating in 0ad", atleast the core team would have to agree on that issue (and since they seem to listen to us lowly players, we all would have to agree). That will not happen, because we all like different aspects of the game and we all have different believes of what this game should become and different backgrounds, under which we interact with the game and its community. The one thing we do agree about (even @WiseKind, the total freedom representative) is that cheating should not become widespread. @WiseKind says only "stuff like revealing the map" (I know thats a sloppy phrase, you know what I mean) is a cheat and the best way to suppress that is by programming a different networking system, (with the goal of making "cheating" simply impossible). Other people say that even extensive GUI changes (without any sort of automation) can be cheating, as it makes the game unfair. Obviously, "cheating" like that cannot be stopped entirely and a suppression needs certain measures, whose use @WiseKind disagrees with (saying the measures would inherently stop the game from being open source). I imagine there are also some people that think GUIs are fine, as long as they do not train any units for you/build any buildings for you or smt similar (Im not talking about proGUI here, btw). The measures against this kind of "cheating" would again differ from the other two. But to actually determine which measures should be taken (if any), we need to precisely formulate the issue (and agree that it is indeed an issue). In so far this thread was a little helpful, as we got a pretty precise look into what @WiseKind believes is cheating and what should be done about that. (For @WiseKind this thread was even more valuable, as he got to hear each of our standpoints.) Now, to move on: How would we decide on what "cheating" is in 0ad? In essence, when somebody talks about cheating, they mean any kind of modification that works against the concept of fair, competitive play, or would anybody disagree with that description? If we agree that the competitive challenge of 0ad should truly only be "in your head", meaning that the only relevant part of the game is in your decisions, and not at all in the execution of those decisions, then any GUI mod can never be cheating (up to the point where you let a script make decisions for you). If we agree that the competitive challenge of 0ad should include not only the decisions, but also their execution ("micro"), (as is the case in every other RTS), then any GUI mod that reduces the amount of inputs you have to give for the same result is cheating.

We use words to convey meaning. But we do not define what the words mean. Because we want to be understood. So we have to use the words according to how they will be understood. Even if you clarify that you will use your own definition for a word, it will be confusing if that definition differs too much from what the general population believes the meaning of that phrase is. Thus I use wikipedia for definitions, as it is the place where most people first learn of specific words/concepts. Therefore I maximise the probability that the person I talk with will understand me. So you think 0ad is doing a good job staying true to its vision? @Seleucids already thinks his army evaporates too fast on 1x speed, when fighting against multiple enemies in a mp game. And, to be honest, if it werent for the notorious lag, 0ad would be the fastest paced RTS I know. (I heard SC2 averages on 11-13 min for high level 1v1s, I believe 0ad is on par, if not faster. And AoE2 takes like, 20-120 mins, especially for 4v4 tgs. Even the longest 0ad games dont often exceed 1h ingame time) Therefore, if you reach top level in 0ad, you will meet some APM restrictions.

I believe that it is impossible to enforce such a rule without making 0 A.D. at least partially nonfree, something I gather we are not going to do any time soon Well, what does "enforcing" mean, here? If I host a multiplayer game, and I do not want my players to use any GUI mods, I will ask them when they join my game "Do you use any GUI mods?". If they say "yes, I use xy", I'll (politely) tell them that I do not want to play with them and they should turn the mods off if they want to play with me. If they say "no" and dont lie, we play together. If they say "no" and lie, we still play together, but if I realize during the game that they lied to me, I ban them. Also, if I realize they lied to me, I wont play with them again. If they say "I do not want to disclose this information", then thats their right, but I will still tell them "then you cant play with me" By doing this, I am "enforcing" that players I my game do not use GUI mods (that can be detected through gameplay). But I did not need to change anything about 0ad code for that "enforcement". I understand your sentiment. But you see, I do not have the time to take a proper look at proGUI, as all the time I do have for 0ad goes to the few games I play with my friends and helping Leif with the historical patch (which is getting better by the day, you should check it out). I'd wager others are in a similar position, they do not wish to invest their time into checking out proGUI, as they already believe it is not a mod they would enjoy/endorse. The different opinions based on whether the auto-trainer is a strategic decision by you or the mod comes from different perspectives, as I understood it; If you believe the choice, in which barracks to produce units in which size is a direct strategic decision, then proGUI is taking that decision for you (or is it not?). If you believe that the choice where to produce how many units is just a means to a higher strategic decision, and the actual decision is still taken by the player, as he defines the ratio (ranged-melee) which proGUI should try to match, then proGUI is not taking any decision fot you.

You are correct. I was neither precise nor vague enough. The best definition might just be the one from wikipedia. "Advantage beyond normal gameplay is vague enough to be interpreted correctly in many different areas. For 0ad, the interpretation might be "Any advantage that could not be obtained by changing "normal" parameters, like setup, connection or settings and necessitates a modification". Thus, any change you make to alleviate "cheap" hardware or a certain disability would not be considered cheating, but any macro, that lets you execute 2 orders with one click would still be cheating.

again, this is correct. You make solid points, just not any that counter the fact that those mods are cheating. Like, autociv is brilliant for its lobby changes (automatically assigning civs, pressing tab to cycle through all different names that start with the same letter, pingall restrictions and /link), its building hotkeys should probably be added to the base game, as should the panel that shows all spectators. But as good as the mod and its impact on the "0ad ecosystem" are, it's still a cheat. You cant just say "Mod xy is good for 0ad, thus it cant be a cheat". Also, cheating isnt even bad. Like, ive cheated in so many singleplayer games and casual multiplayer games its uncountable. If I look at my siblings screen while playing AoE2 FFA, thats cheating. But who cares, its fun. The only argument why autociv might not qualify as cheating while proGUI does, is precisely that so many people use it. If it becomes the norm, then, according to wikipedia, it ceases to be cheating: "Cheating in video games involves a video game player using various methods to create an advantage beyond normal gameplay," Huh. I guess I did not think about that. It sounds reasonable, considering many people like to have a very "clean" image and expressing interest in a cheat sounds bad if you come from more competitive games... That leaves me in a bit of a precarious situation, as I dont like to lie/whitewash something I truly believe to be a cheat, but also dont want to stop anybody from using autociv or proGUI. What would you call a mod that is not suitable for competitive play, but acceptable in a more casual environment? Just "uncompetitive mod"?

I can also allow mods while still knowing that they are cheats in the strict sense. And yes, autociv is a cheat aswell, of course.

are they, though? Atrik argues, that proGUI is and that but these are not arguments why it is not a cheat. These might be arguments that it should be (atleast in parts) added to vanilla 0ad. In fact, both of these arguments actually make proGUI more of a cheat, if anything. As an improvement to the GUI (in the sense Atrik describes) is by definition an advantage (easier to use, quick to wrap your head around, many more meaningful buttons). And more displayed stats are pretty obviously an advantage. And any advantage you get over others by a mod is unfair, thus cheating. (I still dont have a problem with proGUI btw)

Its contradicting to say this is "your definition" of a real-time game and then follow up with this: As, according to the definition you gave, most forms of chess are actually real-time. As are basically all turn-based strategy games I have played. Sure, there might be some day-spanning "mobile games", but for most video games, you dont just leave for any amount of time. I guess the only way "your definition" makes sense is if you have a different definition of "must" aswell. I dont have to be present in the first minute of a 0ad game, I will just lose if I'm not there. As is the case in chess. If you spend 5min of the 8min you have for your game on the toilet, you will lose by time. Also, you don't get to define what "real-time" means in this context. Neither do I. According to wikipedia, "Real-time strategy (RTS) is a subgenre of strategy video games that does not progress incrementally in turns,[1] but allow all players to play simultaneously, in 'real time.'" So "real-time" means all players can do things simultaneously. Now, as there are myriad options on what each player can do over the course of a game and there are (on average) up to 200 units to control, plus 10 or more production buildings, plus 2 to 8 buildings with technologies, it is quite obvious that, by design, a player that can do more things simultaneously will have an advantage. That is the nature of RTS games. If player 1 can execute the same strategy (give the same orders) as player 2, but in a shorter time, he has "free time" in which he can do something "extra" or just think about his next move, precisely because the game is real-time and they play simultaneously. Your opinion, that the "input speed" of the players shouldn't matter and players should be allowed to install as many mods to reduce how often they have to click goes directly against the challenge of simultaneous gameplay. RTS players generally want that the player that can execute more meaningful actions in the same time wins. And that means either the player whose actions are more meaningful, or the player who can make more actions that are as meaningful. If proGUI actually just restarted autoqueue, if wouldnt have brought about such a reaction. As far as I understood, you can tell proGUI (through some button or something) "I want 50% slingers and 50% spearman, but do not use my food if I have only 200 left". Then it will automatically produce units from all your barracks, while keeping the batches as big as possible, without letting your food drop below 200. This is much different than a button to restart autoqueue. ... It also stays captivating and interesting by forcing the player to keep an eye on many different places at once, demanding quick reactions and great multitasking abilities, having the player learn that they can't just do one thing and wait for the results, but do many things at once to optimize their empire and elevate their skills. Indeed, those things are not the same. But consider: If you cant concentrate on/keep track of many things, a high APM will not be of any use to you. This is a natural limitation. Many meaningless actions cannot counter one meaningful action. On the other hand, if you have a high concentration and are able to think of all the things that need to be done at once, but you can't keep up with it, because you are too slow physically, you can always just, train more (and get faster) or think more and get better at prioritizing the truly important actions. It is not impossible to be a world-class RTS player with low APM. Not in AoE2 and even less so in 0ad. That doesnt mean we should just remove this challenge (that players should learn to prioritize or get quicker).

Ah, I don't even think we disagree. I, too, believe that 0ad should not be a clicker game. I tried to make a point through exaggeration. But I do believe there should be some mechanical challenge, as that is also the nature of a real-time strategy game. If one wants to play a game without any mechanical challenge, one should maybe rather look at turn-based games.

I do not think this applies to games. There's a reason games like "Cookie Clicker" exist. It's actually fun to put in "physical effort" (in the form of clicks) and get rewarded for it (in the form of a funny number going up, or winning the game). But why? Hannibal did not decimate the Romans at Cannae merely by coming up with a superb strategy. He defeated them by coming up with a great strategy and having the commanding skills to execute this strategy to its best effectiveness.

Use this link, it doesn't expire: https://discord.gg/hDVVWRyda8

Welcome @WiseKind. You formulate your argument(s) very eloquently and rationally, but you seem to repeat the same talking point in a different formulation quite often? Please correct me if I'm wrong, this is how I understood your main argument (for GUI mods, regarding the network issue/system I cannot speak as I do not have the sufficient knowledge): "The GUI is not part of the game, it is only how we interact with the game, thus changing the GUI cannot be considered cheating, as cheating means the game itself was altered" And you support this argument by using the 0ad vision (again, this is how I understood your post, please correct me if I got it wrong): "The vision states that 0ad is not supposed to be won by executing a build order with the fastest click speed, thus reducing the amount of clicks needed is not a relevant change to the gameplay" If I understood you correctly (if not, please ignore the following paragraph), then I'd like to disagree: - The GUI is a crucial part of the game, not some seperate entity. The GUI is what I am interacting with, it is essentially what I am "playing". A game is a thing in which things happen, according to my inputs. Changing what all the inputs do, means changing the game. Changing the game to have an advantage is considered cheating. - You said yourself that every action should have (or has?) strategic importance. But there are only so many core strategies that fit within the confines of a game, and having a larger army will always be an advantage. So if someone spares even a few seconds because one of their clicks equal ten clicks of a "normal" player, they will have an advantage. And since that advantage comes from installing a mod (which the others might not even know about), it is unfair. An unfair advantage can reasonably be called cheating. I want to answer to two things specifically, first: I do happen to know that putting the checks into place for this would be literally impossible, given the nature of free software I think it's not about any "checks", it's about establishing a common ground on what is "cheating" and what isnt. 0ad has no malicious cheaters (that I know of). But there are different opinions on what should be allowed in a "normal" or a "rated" game. And the "cheaters" we do have (Like @Atrik, the evil, evil villian ) are perfectly reasonable people, that deactivate their "cheats" when asked to (as seen in a recent tournament). So if we did find a common ground, the "cheating problem" would instantly cease to exist. As my last point I want to answer to this: Hello, that's me! I'm bored if I can't click meaningfully atleast twice a second. Even if I had ProGUI, I'd manually manage all my barracks, because I like it and because there's not much else going on (and there shouldn't be, as the "buildup" phase with only light skirmishes and major focus on you economic decisions is a great part of any rts).

A quick google search tells us the largest army rome could muster in the time period was roughly 150.000. Ingame, you seldom have more than 150 land units. Therefore its logical to assume one population unit represents roughly 1000 people. "A" ship that takes up 3 population space would require 3000 men; since a quinquereme had a crew of 300, we can assume one ship represents 10. Some sources say Rome used up to 500 ships in their campaign against the pirates ca. 70 BC, which would be 50 ships in "0ad terms", which is (coincidently?) exactly the maximum amount of ships you could make, if you keep 50 economic population (which is pretty normal). It checks out. A ship (atleast a quinquereme) should take up 3 pop space and it should not get faster with more people inside. Because a quinquereme doesnt magically get more space for more rowers, just because you put more soldiers on deck. If you want a ship with more rowers, you need to build it differently, it would be an additional type of ship in the dock. But nobody would build it, if it took up more population. The alternative to the current approach would be to make the ships barely moveable without garrison, but make them take up 0 population. Then you could put up to three soldiers inside to increase their speed up to their (current) base value.

Give all ships atleast "land ram-level" of pierce resistance (I think its 35?); its massive wood, no amount of arrows is gonna sink a rowing ship. Give every civ a version of the ram ship. This will become the "normal" warship, used against other ships. Reduce the garrison capacity significantly or introduce a debuff to its speed depending on amount of garrisoned soldiers. Revert some aspects of the "Arrow Ship" and rename it to "Transport Ship"; The arrows it shoots should be random again and scale with the amount of troops garrisoned, but prefer land units over ships and buildings. This takes on the role of "anti-landunit" warship, used for harassing cs and women close to water. This ship should not cost metal, as it is basically defenseless against ram ships. Move Scout Ships to p1. This way there are strategic considerations; is it worth to invest in some ram ships to defend your arrow ships which can disrupt the enemy economy? Or can you get away without defending them? Do you spread your units between many ram ships to cross a river or risk losing many at once by putting them in one transport ship (but use less res for ships)? Its a bit of a rock-paper-scissors game; only ram ships dont do much on land, only land units dont do much against arrow ships, only arrow ships dont do much against ram ships.

how did you install 0ad, if I may ask? Through flatpak?