TheCJ

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?

"Sim update" is at 280 while "gui sim update" is at 200, but yea, that seems to be the problem Edit: (atleast for me)

Yes. If the bots add lag, then the performance in a26 4v4 with players would be even better?! Huh. Thanks for the tip, I'll try testing that aswell when I have the time!

I tried playing another 4v4 in a27 and looked at the profiler; For me, the culprits seem to be "sim update" and "gui sim update", which both took over 200msec/frame in lategame, surprisingly enough without any real correlation to what was going on "on the battlefield", so even while we weren't fighting at all. "Render" is at 37 msec/frame, which isnt optimal, but could get me 25fps, which would not be a problem at all. "State hash check" is at ~20, which is noticable, but also not nearly as bad as "sim update". I'm playing on Ubuntu 24.04 and I installed 0ad by downloading the "build" and "data" from https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/releases and then following Atriks instructions here: Someone informed me that I could try installing it with an AppImage? But I don't think that should make a difference? I'm not very well versed in those things, I'm sorry. Is the profile.txt correct? Or is that profiler1? How do I swap to profiler2? I also tried testing in a26, but since I cant really play 4v4 alone, I had to play with 7 bots... but they dont even reach 200pop since they kill each other first... still, in this test game I got to 300pop without any significant lags (sim update took 100msec/frame at most, and only when there was a lot going on, mostly 40-60msec/frame) Edit: After playing a bit more, the sim updates actually went up to 140msec/frame. Considering that there are be less units here than in a proper 4v4, the sim update might not be very different regarding time consumption. But the "gui sim update" in a26 never exceeded 30msec/frame! profile.txt profileA26.txt

This is actually a brilliant observation! Now I'm a bit sad I didn't realize this and applied that distinction I still think many (if not most) players just want a balanced game and don't care too much about the fairness. Thanks for the offer, though I must politely decline. I'll try to take a look at it when I have more time.

Well, I never played with proGUI, so I am by no means an expert. Your words directly contradict Atriks description of what the mod does, and I believe neither of you has an objective view on this topic. But your example is only valid if the rushed player is significantly worse at the game then the proGUI user (when hes using proGUI), thus the fault lies with the host, who didn't do a good job with the balance.

Like Atrik, who overestimates how many players know that he's using proGUI, I believe you overestimate how many players have a problem with it. Most 0ad players I know aren't that competitive, we just want to have some fun and play some games. And even if Atrik would be a little "overrated" since he's using proGUI, when the host knows how well he plays (with it), the game will still be balanced. If someone always uses proGUI, his skill will be estimated accordingly, so it will not affect balance. That's not an opinion, that's a fact. Only when somebody suddenly starts using proGUI, he will be underestimated (as he "suddenly got stronger"), until the other players learn how good he plays with the mod. Thus, I believe most players really do not care that much, even if you might disagree.

Well, yes. But I think it's enough if the host clarifies his preference (I will just start to call my games "teamgame, proGUI users welcome") and if you don't wan't to play with someone that uses proGUI, you don't join those games? Then the agreement would be implicit by joining such games? But of course, that won't solve the problem entirely.

Ah, sorry Atrik, I was purposefully exaggerating, trying to make a point. proGUI is way too weak to be used in a proper "hack vs hack". I consider proGUI a "non-harmful-cheat", much like autocivs building hotkeys or that panel with your teams resources on display (I think its also from autociv?).

Please be civil guys. Also, never attribute to malice what can be explained with ignorance. On that note; as much as I enjoy playing with you @Atrik, I think you are mistaken in this case. I could be wrong, but judging from my experience and the messages in this and other threads, there are certainly players that do not know about who uses ProGUI and who doesnt. I myself played atleast 10-20 teamgames with you before I ever went to the forums and got to know about proGUI. Now granted, since then I know you use it and I still love playing with you, but there was a time I didnt know. And others (especially newer players) will be the same. Now, I got a question to the "other side" ( @BreakfastBurrito_007, @strat0spheric, @Dunedan): Would I not be "allowed" (technically), to host a "hack vs hack" game, where everybody is encouraged to use as many cheats as possible? Even if it is absolutely clear that it's a "hack vs hack"? I mean, its definitely not "intended gameplay" and it would also not be "same conditions for everyone" since they would use different cheats. But I am certain there are people who would have fun playing this. Its like playing a very "silly" mod of the game. AoE2 also has "AI tournaments", where scripters pit their Bots against one another. Thing is, I believe everyone in this thread agrees that visibility is key. Atrik said himself he would like everyone to know that hes using proGUI (or atleast he said he think they already do). And it would also be better for the host. But until there is a implementation of that in the game, I would like to ask; 1. The host of a game to specify allowed mods in the title ("tg progui welcome" or "tg vanilla") 2. The users of "questionable" mods to declare which mods they are using before the start (if the title of the tg does not specifically allow said mods) Both does not take much time and might alleviate the issue at hand. Edit: Then we could also more undoubtedly take disciplinary action against people that are noticed to use such mods without declaring them, as it becomes clear it was done in a deceiving manner.

I agree. But I believe the solution should be reducing the effectiveness of spear cavalry against infantry and workers/women, not reducing its effectiveness against cavalry? Then you would have to use a different type of cavalry to raid your enemy.

Without a cavalry unit thats good against other cavalry, there will be no way to create a division/army that can actually win against and catch the enemy cavalry. In that case, the person that starts making cavalry always wins, because he will always have the numerical advantage regarding cavalry (and your infantry units cant catch him). So you can only force bad fights or let him destroy your economy. It would not be that big of a deal if the defensive structures in 0ad were feasible and effective (e.g. walls that can replace straggler trees and dont take ages to be built), but as-is almost every civ needs to have a counter-cavalry cavalry. Lastly, historically there was a difference between shock cavalry that was supposed to break the enemies infantry formation (e.g. the cataphract) and nimble "flanking" cavalry that tried to eliminate the opposing cavalry before attacking the infantry from behind. (e.g. the Numidian Cavalry famously used by Hannibal and Scipio Africanus)

This is a great idea. Take out all the maps you believe don't have the necessary standard for 0ad and put them in a mod. If someone desperatly misses them, they can install the mod. If nobody misses them, the mod just won't get downloaded.

What purpose does this post serve? I mean, I guess its a nice idea, but what am I supposed to do with this? Also, do your distinctions even apply to 4v4 teamgames? Most of the time it's just the best play to go for a defensive eco-bot tactic, because thats just the strongest tactic in 0ad at the moment. So anyone that makes use of the tactic that has the highest probability of success is silver? Also, what do I do, now that I know King Reza The Great declared me as silver? Should I put that as a custom suffix? Well, my comment may come off as more combatative than intended; you are absolutely correct; the ratings are a very bad indicator of actual skill. But if you want a better way to rank players, why not think about how a mod could process the post-game statistics to calculate a better rating (like local rating is doing, but using better logic). If you manage to decipher which of your skill groups a player belongs to just by looking at the stats, it should be possible to create a mod that can do that aswell, which would be a significant improvement to localratings and ratings as a whole!

Well, I love seeing pros play on different maps, but in the end, the people that actually play should decide what map they want to play on Maybe a quick vote for the players in the game lobby before each game?

Well, @Lion.Kanzen (since you wanted to be tagged so badly), I don't quite see why you even want to attack me at all, but I guess that's just part of your nature, no worries. It's also quite clear you aren't interested in anything productive so I'll spare us both the wasted time and not write anything else.

You seem to have a very aggressive personality... Just to clarify, I do not wish that you would be "expelled" or "kicked out" I dont even have a problem with you. Bur maybe think about what you write before you send it a bit more. For example, what was the purpose of your first message in this thread? Who could benefit from what you wrote? You were just toxic and destructive (as opposed to constructive). Also, did you just try to threaten me? Because I pointed out your hypocrisy regarding good manners? That will surely convince everyone of your values...

Ah, if that's your interpretation of wang_weis message, I can understand your reaction a lot more. I don't think he blamed "the game", though? He mainly attacked the playerbase, claiming its full of losers, smurfs and people that dont understand the game. I guess the part where he says the people are only here because they cant afford better games is an attack on the game... But I highly doubt thats why hes leaving or even an actual argument hes making. Lastly, how can you voice your dissatisfaction about being lost just after proudly announcing that you when someone calls you out for your bad manners?

Not a very nice comment @Lion.Kanzen... Sad to see you go, wang_wei. I remember some very fun games with you. But, well, if 0ad does not bring you joy right now, makes sense that you dont want to spend your time here... Maybe check in from time to time, to see if 0ad evolved in a direction you like? Anyways, wish you the best!

Is there? There's like, 1 very... unique... player, 3 players that get toxic towards their teammates and like, 4 players Ive seen that smurf? And dozens, if not hundreds, of decent and friendly 0ad enjoyers the just wanna have a great time. Of course. You arent working for WFG, so you do not have to report anything. You still have a moral obligation, much like you shouldn't ignore verbal abuse in reallife...

I have, but not as a player. I was spectating a game and they were aswell, together with some other players. They were addressed by the name of their main account and held a normal conversation (i.e. they didnt react in a manner that would suggest that they are not that person), which imo would be sufficient evidence that they are indeed using a duplicate account. Well, "changing the smurf accounts name" means atleast annoying the person behind the smurf account. And if we arent just talking about a specific player, it might even be enough to show them that this behaviour is not tolerated and they might stop doing it. Of course, there will be certain people that don't care about this community and either can't realize the wrongness of their behaviour or won't change their ways regardless. But those are rare even among the smurfs. You can talk with most players. (e.g. you mentioned decger smurfs sometimes? I don't think he's a "lost cause" and will just keep making new accounts if we ban his duplicates...)

@Dunedan doing gods work Glad you're having more fun atm @leopard! You should still keep the historical mod in mind, we played some 3v3s yesterday They solution to toxic players is as simple as it is impossible; Everyone needs to act decent. If someone is toxic, get evidence and report him. If you think someone is smurfing, inform your fellow players. If someone admits to making duplicate accounts, or admits hes playing on a second account right now, get evidence and report him. If you're hosting a game and an unknown account without rating joins, ask them how well they play (There are some reasons why someone might have more experience than an absent rating would suggest). If you find out they lied after the first game (because of their performance), don't play with them again. Well, I think most of what I said is pretty obvious, but I almost never have problems with smurfs or toxic players (maybe 1 out of 30 games or smt like that).

Heavy Spear Cav regularly decides games. An army with 10-20 champs and 100 citizen soldiers wins against an army of 150 citizen soldiers. I have played quite a few games where someone trained a lot more than 40 champions (often 100, but up to 300). But you are correct that you can almost never make an army consisting *only* of champions... Which is good, imho. No army ever had only veteran soldiers