ittihat_ve_terakki

In any competitive game where there is a winner and a loser, the fundamental expectation is that the conditions are equal for everyone involved. That’s the very foundation of competition. When two players sit down to a game of chess, neither side is allowed to use any hidden advantages. The same principle applies to online matches. Once the sense of fairness is compromised, the match itself stops meaning much. The surprising part is that we even have to explain something this basic. What I’ve noticed is that the game’s easily moddable structure and the looseness of the rules are being exploited. And in all the years I’ve occasionally played this game, I have never seen anyone join a game and say: “Hey guys, just so you know, I’m using a mod that lets me do certain things faster.” Not once. I’m not saying these players are deliberately hiding it but they certainly don’t mention it unless someone asks. Yes, some of the usual suspects are known to people who spend time on the forum. But not everyone spends time on the forum. Being active on the forum is not one of the fundamental requirements of this game (some players don’t even speak English.) Many people simply log in to play the game through the multiplayer lobby and that’s completely normal. They shouldn’t be expected to browse forums just to find out whether certain players are using advantage providing mods. A player who simply joins the multiplayer lobby expecting a fair match has no way of knowing that a particular opponent is using a mod that provides an advantage. That player can easily walk into a game assuming equal conditions and end up losing under unfair circumstances without even realizing why. Some people also seem to reassure their own conscience by saying things like “it doesn’t actually provide an advantage.” But if you ever run into a match where they’re forced to play without their mod (usually because a host insists on a clean game) you can quickly see how much they struggle without it. I won’t even get into a debate about why these mods provide an advantage, because that’s exactly the kind of discussion they want. Something that drifts the topic into ambiguity. I guess they expect something like laboratory results, but even if you somehow show them that, their response will just be to question the validity of the lab. I can’t even justify explaining it since anyone with a bit of common sense can see the inequality for themselves. Creating mods is perfectly fine, no one is against that. But if a mod gives you an advantage, then you should be playing against others under the same conditions and you should honestly disclose your mods to every new player you encounter (although, I’m afraid these mods could spread like a plague, as new players may be tempted to use them to succeed quickly.) To be honest, I wasn’t even aware that things like this were happening in this game. Realizing that some players I thought were simply very skilled, were actually cheaters, was disappointing. I hope this issue will be addressed and that the community as a whole realizes how much these practices undermine the quality, integrity and spirit of the game.

?

I’m talking about the topic in the title, referring to the impact of sound variety. There’s nothing confusing here. If you want, ask ChatGPT to explain in Spanish what I mean. Take care.

Well then I guess it might have been more constructive to talk to them. Did they just wake up one morning thinking, “Hmm there’s a historical mistake here, let’s fix it” or was there another thought process behind it? Why was this historical “mistake” made in the first place and what was the thinking behind calling this unit “women”? That’s a different question altogether. If you happen to see this message, dear game gods, please reach out to me. Differentiating units in the game can contribute much more. When you click on a Forge, for example, you hear a different sound than when you click on a Storehouse and that’s excellent. Even clicking on different Forges, you can notice subtle variations among them. There are pitch differences, one might sound higher and another lower. That alone adds to the game. Birds, trees, the shimmering on the water, all of it reinforces the game.

I’ve really stepped out of debate mode, at least with you, because what you said is valuable and you made it clear you want to focus on the conversation. So my question was sincere. I’m curious about your thoughts on having units in the game that didn’t exist in the time of 0 AD. I don’t want to drag the topic out so I completely understand if you’d rather not go into it. I usually see you guys playing regularly together so I mentioned friendship but really, you could replace the word “friendship” with anything you like, it doesn’t matter. Yes you’re not responsible for his words, but you are responsible for your contribution to how the general discussion evolved, but you’ve already noticed that.

I commend your self-reflection here. Maintaining a certain level of discourse is crucial. Take a look at your friend's approach for example: He is reducing the issue to something trivial, invalidating it with irony and mocking it, acting like a high school student. But none of that addresses the core of the matter: what has this change actually added to the game? Is it necessary? While I’ve been focusing on these thoughts, someone else chimes in with, "When I woke up, he was ranting about the topic and he’s still ranting when I’m back lol. It's really funny seeing him trying to counter the 'woke agenda' XDD." Maybe we're not realizing it but through all the hype, groupthink and attempts to trivialize the issue, the quality of the conversation is genuinely declining. Birds add something to the experience. Even if they don't directly affect gameplay, they serve as "eye candy", those subtle details that enhance the feeling the game gives you. Sometimes you can just look at games as you're gazing at a landscape painting. Or even the variety of tree species, it's valuable and it's richness. Personally, I don't see the removal of "Women" as a positive development because it doesn’t elevate anything. Replacing "Women" with a mixed-gender unit doesn’t enrich the game. Men were already present, so this doesn’t add diversity. Do you think Cleopatra should stay in the game? If so, why?

I think you might have a serious problem with reading comprehension. It could also be the case for you that English not being your best language is affecting your understanding. If you can't grasp the context, why I gave this example and the flow of the conversation, then it's either your fault or bad intent. What I said is very clear and you’re misquoting me. Please, when you quote me, at least make sure you're quoting what I actually said. Just like I did with you. It’s probably better if you don’t. I don’t have a personal issue with you, you're just one of the 3-5 random people who jumped in on my post. Take care.

I absolutely never said such a thing. What you’re doing right now is completely manipulating my words and twisting them in a different direction. What I actually said was this: in the game, people still keep saying “women.” So presenting examples from the forum is meaningless because I was talking about in-game terminology. “Discussing” topics does not mean everyone has to agree or that some sort of pressure should be created. You need to understand that. I expressed a different opinion and people are reacting a lot now. We’re talking about a change that adds nothing to the game, and it’s even been pointed out that it creates confusion regarding the voices. The forum exists precisely to discuss things like this. I kind of get the impression that friends here are coming to defend each other. In my opinion, that makes those people seem a bit needy. I think everyone should just be allowed to speak for themselves. In the lobby, it’s already the same people playing among themselves, so it’s understandable that you use your own terms within your narrow circle. That kind of bromance solidarity might be sweet among yourselves, but it’s not a good example of defending free expression. I’m concerned that some responses seem aimed at discouraging different viewpoints. Because I’ve seen many attempts that are dripping with irony, attempts to talk down, belittle and invalidate what’s being said. Open discussion and respectful disagreement are essential to maintaining the quality and credibility of this forum. I say exactly what I mean. There’s no need to manipulate my words or search for hidden intentions. Removing the “female” unit adds absolutely no value to the game and, from the looks of it, only serves to satisfy the ego of those proposing it. - This is also the classic form of a manipulative apology: “I’m sorry if you were offended.” A person either apologizes for their behavior or they don’t. Framing the other side as “offended” is a subtle implication in itself. I doubt you’re even aware of these nuances, especially given that you seem to struggle with the idea of free expression and discussion. When someone simply voices their opinion without attacking anyone, calling it “nonsense” is not cool. Then you portray it as “we’re just discussing.” It’s very clear that’s not what’s happening. Suppressing opinions that differ from yours, creating pressure by liking each other’s posts etc. There’s really no need for all that, just chill. This level of mobilization over an update that adds nothing to the game is excessive. This game has many unsolvable issues if we’re going to be bothered by historicity and realism. It’s a game and essentially no one plays it for strict historical accuracy. Cleopatra wasn’t alive in 0 AD, yet she’s in the game. She’s also a female unit. Should we remove her too? No, because she actually adds something to the game. These “gendered gender-neutral civic equal civilian villagers,” or whatever you want to call it, add nothing to the game. - Quotation marks indicate a direct citation, that’s how it works. When something is placed in quotation marks, it means those exact words were used. I never used a term “real players,” yet you present it as if I did. Are you ok? What I said is perfectly clear. Maybe read it a couple more times. Ok let's go there. Wasn’t it you who suggested adding Slavic factions to the game, seemingly because you’re Slavic yourself? "Could you please add Slavs in the next version of 0 A.D.?" If one of us is bringing ideological motives into this discussion, it’s not me. And apparently historical accuracy wasn’t all that important to you either. Look at what you said: “I realize that this is a game of ancient warfare, but I don't think we should strictly hold onto that period. Age of Empires 2 already broke the historical setting they're in, so why stick to it like ‘pijan plota,’ as we southern Slavs like to say.” And now you’re defending a historical correction, oh wonderful. You also previously suggested removing the female unit from the game, which might explain why you’re taking this issue a bit personally right now. There’s a strange tone of condescension in the way you write. “Who cares how people call them in the lobby?” and who exactly are you to say that? Should people in the lobby care about your opinion instead of their own? I’ll say it again: I don’t know who you think you are, but you’re not that person bud. - I had to respond one by one to three people now who are desperately defending an update that adds absolutely nothing to the game just because they were the ones who proposed and supported it. It literally feels like a 3v1 Mainland unbalanced TG lol

I think you’re the one losing context here, probably because you’re arguing in a language that you are not good at. I gave that example because you defended changing the name “Women” and said, “I’ve already seen many people adopt the term ‘Civilian’ without any issue.” And the examples you showed were messages from before the update anyway. No, the people who actually play the game don’t call them that. Maybe a small group on the forum approaches the issue from a nerdy, overly technical angle and see things with such classifications. But I’m talking about real matches in the lobby, what players actually say in-game, not forum terminology. You’ve portrayed yourself quite innocent here but that’s not how it happened. I was actually simply expressing my opinion in a normal way, I didn’t even tag you. Yet you jumped in with “And what you’re saying here is nonsense.” It wasn’t some calm, neutral “I just asked why it’s a bad change and now we’re discussing arguments, that’s all.” That’s not how it unfolded. I’m not sure whether to attribute this to a lack of language nuance or something else entirely. But if you genuinely value the idea of freely expressing opinions, then you shouldn’t immediately try to shut down views you dislike by labeling them as “nonsense.” Turning the issue into a kind of TG mainland with your allies and then framing it as “I was just sharing my opinion” doesn’t work. Yes it adds confusion and nothing else. That's my point. Politically speaking: Removing women altogether isn’t exactly a brilliant move either. I think it would have made more sense to keep the “women” unit and maybe even make it a better. Right now, the game has completely erased the only position women held. The “women” unit had its own unique role and abilities. Even her voice alone added a sense of balance to the game. Removing it now feels like an almost anti-women move. At least Ptolemaic hero Cleopatra is still around thankfully lol The update, claimed to bring “realism,” actually introduced wizards who deal things like “aura damage” into the game. If you genuinely say, “Let’s produce some CiViLiAnS” while playing, you are a robot bro.

I agree. However, the role of women in that period of history wasn’t exactly prominent. Reflecting that in the game, where women are seen as simple laborers, can understandably feel uncomfortable from a modern perspective. That’s probably why a political approach emerged, like “at least let them be equal to men, even if it means making them just as weak.” This change felt so unnecessary to me that I’m now finding reasons for it on their behalf.

This is a very condescending statement. You’re basically saying you don’t respect the people who play the game. I don’t know who you are, but you’re not who you think you are. This comment was a response to the guy who said, “Haha, I guess seeing men working in the fields upset you.” We could already see men working in the fields before. In fact, using soldiers for farming is actually a very good strategy in the mid-to-late stages of the game. And I'm actually amazed at how determined you are to defend this change, even though it adds nothing to the game. That sounds a lot ChatGPT. Lol are you copy-pasting directly from ChatGPT? Just like no one says “Lusitano Ezpatari” and simply calls it “jav,” the term “civilian-something” doesn’t really mean anything in practice. People will keep calling them "women". That’s not going to change no matter how brilliant you believe your idea is. That’s why this feels like a meaningless change, it doesn’t add anything to the game except confusion. I’m obviously not against artistic work, nor could I be. But we all know this wasn’t an artistic or aesthetic change. It looks more like something that came out of someone obsessing over a minor issue and trying to smooth out a “flaw” that wasn’t really there in the first place. It even feels like the late effects of a “politically correct” trend. Visual changes can absolutely affect gameplay and player experience. However, removing the concept of “women” from the game doesn’t strike me as an artistic decision at all. I guess we’ve finally found some common ground there.

When the argument of “historical realism” comes into play, then all other realistic options should also be considered. In some games, there’s a rest mode, day–night cycles and children born from parents etc. You think these realism obligations are ridiculous, yes, because they are. Why was the unit called “women” in the first place? I think we should reflect on that. Was it originally chosen with a sexist idea in mind? “Civilians” is definitely an artificial term and if you observe the games in the lobby you’ll see that everyone calls them “women” anyway. The thing is this: we were already seeing men working in the fields. The ability to use men for farming or gathering fruit has always been in the game. This is a game and any changes made should add something to the gameplay. This change doesn’t contribute anything to the game, looks like it only serves to satisfy the people who suggested it.

You can tell this isn’t a positive improvement from the fact that everyone will continue to call this new farmer unit “women.” This change adds absolutely nothing to the game in terms of gameplay. The justifications being offered are “historical accuracy” and “realism.” If that’s the case, then we should also add mechanics like sleep, rest, parents having children, a full day–night cycle and redesign the entire game from scratch. We should also reconsider how a “hero” can survive after being hit by 50 arrows. I’d also like to address the following points: Male soldiers were already able to farm. They were simply less efficient at it. (Likewise, women could work in mines and gather stone and metal, just less efficiently.) So the farmer role already included men, making men farmers is not a new update. The only real effect of this change is that it effectively removes “women” from the game. If we’re talking about historical accuracy and realism, let’s look at population numbers. Imagine we have a village with 300 population. If 250 are soldiers and 50 are “farmers,” and even if only half of those farmers are women, does that mean there are only 25 women in a population of 300? When farmers were exclusively women, at least the number of women was higher. Where are the women who are supposed to make up half of the population?

commands.txt @user1 This is a report regarding the player “Malavita” My lobby name is "ittihat_ve_terakki" He joined a 1v1 game that I was hosting. The game started normally, but when he realized he was about to lose, he began insulting me and behaving in a toxic manner. The game was actually unrated, but instead of resigning properly, he quit the match. He also accused me of choosing the map unfairly, even though he accepted the map at the start and raised no objections until he was losing. I am reporting this behavior as it is unsportsmanlike and disruptive.