"auto-sniping" thoughts and tests

[real_tabasco_sauce]

34 minutes ago, Atrik said:

controversial gui mods

I wouldn't call ProGui a GUI mod. BoonGui is tho.

27 minutes ago, Atrik said:

=> @guerringuerrin you always want to prevent access to some features to players that could want to use.
=> I would prefer the game to have better/resilient mechanics and better features.

Not sure what the second point is. Perhaps these translate to:

1. Prevent unequal access to gameplay altering mods. (one player has an unfair advantage)(or you can call it cheating because that is what an unfair advantage is).

2. By better/resilient mechanics and better features, do you just mean your mod should be in the game?

Anyway, I think @BreakfastBurrito_007 is right, just some transparency on the mods used is needed. Then modding public in multiplayer should be considered a breach of the terms of use.

 

[Atrik]

1 hour ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Anyway, I think @BreakfastBurrito_007 is right, just some transparency on the mods used is needed. Then modding public in multiplayer should be considered a breach of the terms of use.

Seems we all agree on this then.

1 hour ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

1 hour ago, Atrik said:

=> @guerringuerrin you always want to prevent access to some features to players that could want to use.
=> I would prefer the game to have better/resilient mechanics and better features.

Not sure what the second point is. Perhaps these translate to:

1. Prevent unequal access to gameplay altering mods. (one player has an unfair advantage)(or you can call it cheating because that is what an unfair advantage is).

2. By better/resilient mechanics and better features, do you just mean your mod should be in the game?

You are deforming my point and bring it back to progui. But besides, I'm not the only one who already posted ideas to adapt some features to vanilla, as crazy as you'll believe it is.

My point was about how some deal with customization in general, where everybody should be equals, at the expenses (in the context of the post you quoted) of not being able to hide decorations on map as example. This setting isn't in my mod. It's in vanilla. Still the reaction is that peoples shouldn't use or even be aware of it's existence for the sake of fairness. I don't use this setting nor Star GUI, yet makes sens they exist and removing/banning them doesn't sound like making ANY sens.

[guerringuerrin]

2 hours ago, Atrik said:

The real reason Star GUI or simplifying the tree models is great is that in helps you build better woodlines.

You have perfectly described one of the advantages it provides. Is it good or bad? It's not the point. The point is that if one user uses it and another doesn't, the user who uses it has an advantage over the other. Are we for or against that? That is the underlying discussion.
All I'm saying is: in a competitive environment those criteria have to be clear and there have to be ways to enforce those criteria. And that is why every serious multiplayer game defines what modifications are allowed or not in the competitive environment.
 

2 hours ago, Atrik said:

You can already refuse to play with players you'll deem "cheaters" by your standards. All enforcement / whitelisting of mods doesn't sound reasonable to me. Smurfing, map, stats and chat hacks are probably much more nefarious then using some controversial gui mods. And as discussed multiple times above, theses cheats, are already mods players hide. So once again: a mod-banning feature would just decrease UX, and do nothing against real cheaters

I rarely use the word cheater to refer to these advantages and disadvantages problems that certain mods have.
But there is something that is very clear: your mod uses macros to automate tasks, moving units automatically at the start of the game without the player having to do nothing more than setting some options before the game. It produces units according to available resources and housekeep and does so automatically. Shares resources automatically and even in numbers that the vanilla version does not allow.

There is a very big difference between a player who has a macro that makes those calculations and executes the orders instantly and another player who has to use his head and hands to do it. It is not so difficult to understand and accept.

When we move from a GUI modification to automating game commands and functions, then we can no longer simply call that a "GUI modification".

proGU: It also has some modifications to the GUI to show inactive units and buildings. Or calculate a K/D ratio to see how you're doing in battle (not sure if you implemented this feature in the end) or be able to share resources by clicking on the player in the boonGUI-based resource table. Features that I particularly find very interesting and valuable for the game.

2 hours ago, Atrik said:

=> @guerringuerrin you always want to prevent access to some features to players that could want to use.

I don't consider myself someone who only seeks to ban features. This is a debate in which everyone has their opinion. But if that's your opinion, there's nothing I can do.
 

2 hours ago, Atrik said:

If the game has such mechanics requiring to spam clicks just to make something very simple, it will advantage the players using a particular mouse model or driver too much. And this dumb mechanic isn't worth developing an anti-cheat system like throttling cps or something silly like this.

I agree. There is no point in carrying out an effort like this. I think it's a matter of working on balance and improving AI. I don't think it's necessary to create a mod to auto-snipe neither
In my opinion, this type of thing is important to develop in the vanilla game because otherwise the same thing happens again, those who have and those who do not have the mod.
And judging by the events of the last year that will only lead to more divisions.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

Simple Question: Would an eSports event allow you to use this mod? 

[real_tabasco_sauce]

3 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Simple Question: Would an eSports event allow you to use this mod? 

Absolutely not. Although I imagine gui mods that don't provide additional information would be permitted. like the disappearing leaves @Atrik mentions.

[guerringuerrin]

1 hour ago, Atrik said:

My point was about how some deal with customization in general, where everybody should be equals, at the expenses (in the context of the post you quoted) of not being able to hide decorations on map as example. This setting isn't in my mod. It's in vanilla. Still the reaction is that peoples shouldn't use or even be aware of it's existence for the sake of fairness. I don't use this setting nor Star GUI, yet makes sens they exist and removing/banning them doesn't sound like making ANY sens.

In fact forests with trees with voluminous crowns can be used to hide outposts beneath them. And this at some point is something that one can use to their advantage in certain biomes and not in others. So having the possibility of turning trees into purple sticks or eliminating them with a variable in a configuration file is something that influences the game (or helps to have better woodlines or see enemy armies better).
In any case, I brought this example, not with the intention of eliminating that mod or criticizing it, but as another example of how some modifications that may seem simply aesthetic can influence the game.

[Atrik]

@guerringuerrin yes, the point of disappearing leaves is to reveal what's behind, thus revealing additional info. Still very attractive feature. But no reasons to blame players using it because you don't like the implementation or anything. I resonate with most of what you say but I just don't see why would the default reaction should be to restrict use else then letting the decision to hosts.

[guerringuerrin]

2 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Simple Question: Would an eSports event allow you to use this mod? 

I would say that it is most likely that any mod that automates aspects of the game or changes its graphics in such a way that whoever uses it obtains a significant advantage over those who do not use it will be considered unsuitable for use in a competitive environment. That does not necessarily mean not allowing it to be used, but it does mean that its use is confined to "friendly matches", without rating/points or any other type of competition.
We could again use as an example the small trees of age of empires 2 that have become a standard and are available to everyone even in competitive environments and, on the contrary, mods that automate aspects of the game in some way have been prohibited, with some exceptions like the cavalry's Auto-explore.

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

In my opinion, competitive aspects of the game are inherently more fun and should be maintained for casual matches. It's no coincidence that competitive e-sports in the RTS genre consistently use ancient games such as Aoe2 as opposed to recent releases like aoe4. Modern game designs seem to forget that gaining skills and knowledge and mastering challenging techniques are what make games fun and re-playable in addition to being more viable in a competitive environment.

14 hours ago, guerringuerrin said:

cavalry's Auto-explore

It's really great to bring this up. The reason that its allowed in competitive environments is because its not optimized, intentional scout control will beat autoscout every single time. Automation aspects that aren't easily beaten by player control should never be considered for inclusion in the game. Even with 0ad's vanilla autoqueue it was mathematically proven that 1 by 1 training provides the fastest return on costs spent on the units, yet because 1 by 1 training is outpaced by manual batches, players can invest more of their resources for faster population growth which gives more resources than 1 by 1 eventually. 

[chrstgtr]

On 23/12/2023 at 11:32 PM, Atrik said:

""auto-sniping mod"" is a legend used by players losing games and in need of an excuse to not face their mistakes or true level in the game.

Big words coming from you. 

[solsyah_nusantara]

atrikII. stop mod cheat, just normal game. u know

[AInur]

Some experiments conducted in Atlas editor regarding sniping:

With no upgrades at all:

• 18 archers can kill a class_b ranged unit at their maximum firing range in 1 shot
• 11 slingers can kill a class_b ranged unit at their maximum firing range in 1 shot

 

• Between 19 and 21 archers can kill a class_a ranged unit at their maximum firing range in 1 shot
• 11 slingers can kill a class_a ranged unit at their maximum firing range in 1 shot

 

• An indefinite number of archers is required to kill a class_e ranged unit at their maximum firing range in 1 shot. The number required is huge due to the inaccuracy of the archers - in the most lucky case, 23 would be enough. In less fortunate cases, 35 is required.
• 13 slingers can kill a class_e ranged unit at their maximum firing range in 1 shot.

 

With only archer accuracy upgrade:

• 18 archers can kill a class_b ranged unit at their maximum firing range in 1 shot with certainty; 17 is sufficient for most instances.
• 19 archers can kill a class_a ranged unit at their maximum firing range in 1 shot.
• Between 23 to 25 archers are required to kill a class_e ranged unit at their maximum firing range in 1 shot.

[leopard]

On 10/01/2024 at 5:07 AM, guerringuerrin said:

In fact forests with trees with voluminous crowns can be used to hide outposts beneath them. And this at some point is something that one can use to their advantage in certain biomes and not in others. So having the possibility of turning trees into purple sticks or eliminating them with a variable in a configuration file is something that influences the game (or helps to have better woodlines or see enemy armies better).
In any case, I brought this example, not with the intention of eliminating that mod or criticizing it, but as another example of how some modifications that may seem simply aesthetic can influence the game.

Unit silhouettes should not be visible to the enemy if our army is inside the woods