strat0spheric

i guess you don't mean me in this context Because i am definetly against the automation - but what i meant to say is that fairness in terms of equal conditions for everyone is the most important aspect for me. I prefer definetly to juggle all balls.

@Atrik I want to add to my posts that i really don't want to discredit your work and effort for the ProGUI in general. As far as i have read about it you introduce some interesting and useful features that might also be considerable for an implementation in the vanilla version, e.g. showing idle barracks or buildings (I mean vanilla already shows idle units). A lot of respect for that. All the improvements of a GUI that are not really automating tasks, are not of my concern. I also don't want to throw the autotrainer and startup-script in the same basket with the cheats, that reveal the map or reveal enemy stats and chat. This is also another level, imo. But still automation makes a difference and does change the required attention and concentration and multitasking. This is what many players judge as unfair. If automating the unit production would be part of vanilla, and hence used by all players there would be even conditions as well. I could also live with that - because it would also reestablish fair competition. I expect of a multiplayer game, that skill decides. You can compare your performance with others, learn from replays, improve your eco-management and hopefully improve your gameplay and lvl. So that rating at the end means a thing. What could i learn from replays of a player using automation or how could i compare my skill level with yours if i wanna stick with the vanilla? Surely, atm this is my problem and i can avoid it if i don't play with people who use the autotrainer (still this is not visible to me before a game)... but basically i would prefer if there would exist a common understanding and gaming culture. I know i am only talking about a feeling here, which might be considered naive. But, just given the fact that there is a rating system (even if it is definetly not perfect), leads me to the assumption that the developers intended to provide it to make a fair comparison of skill levels possible. If we had dedicated servers, the providers could define their own rules of gameplay for their server and ban certain tools. But we don't have that, nor do we obviously have means of simple detection for cheats in general. So imo it would be favourable that for now it is visible for everyone what WFG considers as unfair and/or cheating, which includes answering the question if they tolerate autotrainers and startupscripts or not. I just miss the orientation here and it is obvious that others have the same issue, because the point 8. of the TOS is obviously too vague to give a clear guidance. It could be added, that "when not explicitly mutually agreed on..." But i guess, after this endless discussion, which turns out to change nothing that i have to call my games tg(vanilla), as @TheCJ recommended and trust that people switch the autotrainer and the startup script off when we play together.

Yesterday i had 3 4v4 games. All of them ended up at around min 13 or 14, when the battle started with 1! fps for me and the rest of the players. Thats basically not playable. I would have been happy about 10 fps. Since a27 this is always the case. I had at least around 6 to 8 fps in a26 in comparable situations. PC: Razer blade stealth laptop on i7. Here is my commands.txt of one of the games yesterdaycommands.txt Edit: i have to figure out the profiler thing ...tbc

@Meister thank you for this honest explanation of your experience !

yeah, true. This is also making a difference. But maybe not that much of an impact as the autotrainer.

...to be more precise: you should call it "autotrainer welcome" because this part of ProGUI is what is relevant. Not the GUI improvements

np, @Atrik for sure you are not hiding it because everyone who read the forum knows it I didn't mean that. But i mean it is absolutely not clear who in the community else uses it. To exaggerate a bit: At the end i might be the only one who doesn't use it and doesn'T even know

I agree on the 1st suggestion as a direct measure but on the 2nd i have my doubts this will be ever done... As i mentioned. This requires the self-awareness that there is an issue. That is true, but i still don't know who uses it and i don't want to ask everybody. As this question would have to be raised every now and then as there are always new players starting to use it. It is only you and 1 more i know of that are using it.

.. this is definetly not the case

hi Atrik, wdym with creating SmurfS? I hosted many games and i am not aware of the mods players use. I don't even know how i could be. This is beyond my technical skills. I am sorry. I dunno how everything i said is interpreted as a lie, Atrik. What exactly do you think i lied about ? I think there is no need to get personal.

Unfortunately, the playerbase doesn't seem to bother or is not informed enough. I personally don't undertand why this topic is not getting more attention. The thing is atm i don't see many options from a player perspective to deal with the problem. I mean a player could add a flag "noProGui / autotrainer users" to the games he hosts. But how could he make sure that this rule is followed, when you cant determine the mods used by a player? Or, could this problem be approached from the other direction? If the ProGui-community would be more self-aware about the advantage they possess and honestly express the use of it (e.g. adding a ProGui flag to their username)? I mean using it is one side of the problem, but disguising it is the other side. But, what would happen to the community in these cases? Would it split the community ? In my opinion, the discussion in this thread leads to 2 other measures that address the developers and the "WFG-authorities": 1. Provide a technical solution that shows the used mods of a player in the lobby and more important: 2. Define more clearly what is considered "unfair advantage" according to the TOS and add this definition below the welcome message in the multiplayer lobby (just where there is already written: "It is a violation of the terms of use..."! (At least the word auto-trainer should be listed there) -> remove the grey area and the room for interpretation If there is no consensus on the 2nd point. This will never be solved. ... and all the RangerK's and Dakaras and myself and so on will be left frustrated and at a certain point leave the game or use the sh** themselves...

my post wasn't meant to be a reply to your specific post, but to all the others who obviously use autotrainers and stuff and don't call it an advantage. Which is ridiculous cause that's the reason they use it. To gain this specific advantage. Andyes this is not a), as stated above. But surely a graphic enhancement of the ui and some nice shortcuts and seeing allied stats as with the normal autociv when used as intended is not really giving you an advantage in the gameplay.

crazy that people possessing and using a tool that gives an advantage over others without the tool can't name it as it is ..... parallel universe ? a) what counts as fair: same conditions for all parties what counts as unfair: not a) ! it is so simple.

Hello, i compiled 0ad a27 from source on my linux machine. It basically worked but as there is a flatpak available now i would like to use that one to see if the performance might be better. ... but ... i don't know how to uninstall the compiled version. Could someone give me a hint on how to do that, so that i have all unnecessary dependencies also removed. I didn't find any uninstall instructions so far. Thanks

Hello ! I am posting this for Chesnutter, cause he asked me to I think these are great and probably ambitious ideas for improvement of the game.... (i hope this is the right place for it .. if not please move it) Hey, I’m a Roman history fan so my knowledge and focus is on them more than other ancient civs. I think these would make playing as and against the Romans more authentic, fun and challenging. Bear in mind I have no coding experience but here are my ideas. So, Roman engineer (unit) builds trenches, traps and roads. OR it could be just the basic infantry unit. Historically, Roman soldiers were part fighter and part builder. I think a greater emphasis in 0ad of this would make it more real. Trenches (with spiky stakes or simply a deep empty moat (with/without water): - Doesn’t prevent enemy infantry movement across but slows them down a lot (80% speed reduction) - Doesn’t damage infantry unless spikes/stakes tech upgrade (like a gate in a wooden wall however you could double click to select all trenches in view to upgrade them to have stakes all at the same time - Requires a lot of wood. - Cheap and fast to build compared to walls but in some ways less effective. Available in phase one, degrades over time(?). Built like a wall across an area. Good against early cav rushes. Prevents cav and siege from crossing. 2. Traps/pits « lilies »: - heavily damages and slows down enemy infantry and cav, but doesn’t damage rams. - Expensive to build. - Built along an area (shown as a bunch of small holes with spikes in them) - Barely visible for a realistic element of surprise. Maybe once enemy units have been damaged they become viable to the enemy (like trenches degrades over time). Would this be hard to code? 3. Roads - speed up movement of units (allied AND enemy). - Available in phase one though maybe cost prohibitive unless teammates contribute resources - which I think would be cool, increasing teamwork and community interaction (which is what I like about gaming). - Built out on the terrain and any units moving on it move 20-25-30% faster. - Requires wood and a lot of stone. - Built mostly straight to make it user-friendly (curved or zigzag roads wouldn’t be playable). - Shift right click to make the units go from point A to point B (so they walk along the road). - Or it could work a bit like a hero/monk where when they are near the road they move faster (but less visually appealing IMO). Does this make sense from a user POV? - Roads could be built through forests, bogs, hills, rivers etc... just like the Romans did it. I don't think roads would make the romans OP because the cost would be fronted by the user building it but it could also be used against him. *Roads are one of the things that made it possible for Rome to conquer the known world (and for them to be conquered themselves by « barbarians” in the 200-400s AD), so I specifically like this idea. 4. (Non-Roman) Need to be stronger against Siege. Wooden walls should be cheaper to build and faster. To make possible what Caeser did in his Gallic wars. Ie Alesia. OTHER GENERAL IDEAS to increase historical accuracy and more interesting game play. Range bonus for troops/siege on hills. Attack + defense/health bonus for troops hills. More implementation for defensive formations (like Romans) but that players actually want to use. Slow attrition for armies not in allied/home territory. Attrition for armies/troops in the sun VS healing rate for troops in the shade/forests. Defensive bonus for troops fighting on edge of forest (to imitate guerrilla tactics). 0zon “Cost surface” ideas + some input from me. “With a cost surface function recalculating range or walking speed etc. based on attributes such as slope, altitude or landuse type (forest, meadow etc.) some of the ideas could be maybe technically implemented..…” - 0zon Reduced speed walking up hills. Reduced speed walking through forests/bogs/sandy areas. Increased speed for troops on flat/non hilly ground (specifically for cav). Rams can only move on flat open terrain. Increased fertility/food gains on flat grassy areas (for farms). Increased building costs on non-flat lands. Forests that regrow. Rams get attack bonus when garrisoned. Allied temple’s aura also heals troops. An idea from LeiftheLucky (I think) Ranged units have only a certain amount of ammo and then they have to use melee or/and go back to allied territory/cc/barracks/garrison to replenish stock. Keep up the good work and THANK YOU! Chesnutter on 0ad Edited several times for spelling and formatting