I don't think you can really influence them to resign in that game mode though, and any weird thing that'd technically work I don't see being faster than just making a wonder (if I'm proven wrong I'll amend the rules)

As far as we know, Mac versions are functionally identical to JP except with that advantage, yes

I'm glad it's just that since if Mac-only instapasses or something made certain categories much faster on Mac then it'd have to be a real big case of pay up or go home

The main cause of this issue I know of is when one of the programs is running as administrator and the other isn't, so make sure they're running on the same level admin or not and see if that helps

A for allow. B for ban.

From what I understand, you technically skip missions since the different parts of EoTL are considered missions in the game code. However, from an outside perspective it's obviously one big mission, so this is why whether this should be allowed or not could be fuzzy.

You can explain why you voted a certain way if you'd like. Thread will be locked after a week, votes counted (filtering votes from those who shouldn't really be voting) and a decision will be made based on that.

@Reset I kinda meant being constructive without typing like this. I mean, "do you not think the Full Mod would just talk to the current mods of the leaderboard ultimately?" Nah, they've intervened when they've had to before, would be kind of useless otherwise. And you say that the person trying to help you with this whole issue now just "came in saying things out of anger, not even thinking about what you're saying". Yeah, I kinda said a few things there that pointed out my annoyance at you, but right now that's the best I can do when the stuff you've posted is far more provocative. So instead of trying to attack me with those points I was thinking it'd be better to stop this dumb game of "I'm better than you" from the both of us since it has nothing to do with the game and causes a lot of pointless noise to whatever constructiveness does arise. Thanks.

'least you got that out of your system. Now hopefully conversations going forward can actually be more constructive. If one of the mods doesn't make it by like 12h from now then I guess I'll do it anyway.

I suggested you post in the thread about abusive/incapable/inactive mods because I'm not a mod (nor a super mod to be able to remove Jolzi for that matter) and since you seem so willing to change things then I figured that you may as well make an attempt to actually do something instead of smashing your keyboard on the forums every few months and calling everyone stupid as if it'll actually do anything (it won't). But your points still stand, despite the manner in which they were presented.

Seeing as the only reason he's still a mod is because of the old system where series mods got game mod by default and nobody bothered to remove him, then yes, I would agree that he is up for removal. I'm sure the mods of this game and other runners among you would agree with that. See what I can do about that. Possibly same with Gael. I imagine it's also distasteful to see me even listed among the mods but I can't really do anything but accept/reject runs now which I kinda feel obligated to do after the whole thing. It's not really as exciting as it sounds.

I don't really see the issue with you posting the thread yourself, but if you really want one of the cliquey moronic mods to do it, then that'll be done instead. It indeed is not so hard to do, but the same applies to you, it's not hard to do. You could've just made the thread yourself. But since it's gotten to this, may as well have hoxi/frew make it. Common sense filter and one week before locking sounds reasonable enough to me.

There's a thread about that sort of thing under "The Site" I think, otherwise Frew's discretion I suppose. Also, forum bans don't exist. I was deleting shitposts but I'm not really suited to mod the actual leaderboard as was proven. For the same reason I don't want to be the one making the vote forum thread. There's the whole issue with non-runners voting so I guess you can just make it and exclude the votes of people deemed by actual runners to not have their votes count and then see what the result is.

Might be too restrictive to force AoK usage for Wallace runs IMO, but I guess that would be the preference.

Figures. I'll move the Wallace runs and remove the column within a few days probably

Also, side note for Wallace, I don't think rules requiring manipulating whatever to have Wallace runs on hard should be made unless someone wants to test out tangible differences in difficulty on that.

Iwer Sonsch brought this up again recently in the discord, and one of Tei's recent runs for William Wallace seems to have somehow been set to Hard. Every respectably good runner runs on hard, most of the Standard column is empty, and what I did with keeping Standard for Wallace runs is quite pointless in retrospect. You can't select difficulty for Wallace but maybe that just means that there is no difficulty difference? and even if there was, it doesn't warrant its own column to hog up the rest of the space. I expect most people to agree but I've had a bad habit as a mod for several games to take action that seems reasonable only for people to disagree after the fact or be all confused, so here.

I had issues with the game crashing on PS2, FDS or not. No issues with PS1 or with the XEBRA emulator though (I'm iffy on ePSXe for any speedruns anyway).

It's not vague. The mission passes when the onmission flag is set to 0 by the mission end. The usual way to determine this is by looking at the icons on the minimap (when they reappear at the end of the mission, then the mission has been passed). So far this hasn't been an issue, and even if someone's run had no other missions remaining, other methods could be used to determine when the mission specifically ends, like at the end of a cutscene or something. In cases where being on the mission while onmission=0 is part of the strat for the IL, the same thing can be done.

If it were a translation other than this official one, it would indeed be disallowed. The differences mostly seem to lie in the translations themselves. I can't read Russian, but maybe someone could compare the subtitles of the initial cutscenes or other details to Russian translation mods, and if they matched up, it could serve as some evidence.

@DestroyerArcher Looks like the series-wide forum has been inactive enough for me not to notice this. If you still want to run an AoEO leaderboard, contact me on Discord or somewhere where I'll get a notification and I can create it and mod you.

I would really prefer that the leaderboards be accurate, so that especially WRs shouldn't be left off of it, but I won't forcibly submit them.

I guess it was never submitted. I'll add it for now, dunno if there was a reason for it not being submitted in the first place or if it was forgotten

There was a Titan All Campaigns run like that once with the editor glitch, but among the few people involved with AoE series speedruns at the time it was decided not to allow that glitch in particular. Anything else would be okay for now, I guess. It'd be good for runners (including you) to discuss this more but it is a pretty inactive speedgame, although @Adam_ak has done some runs lately so he could pitch in with thoughts.

Nice find! I can't say I've ever seen or heard of this existing. Looks from Tei's video, you can still make more advanced units from buildings like the Siege Workshop despite being in the Stone Age. I don't have the game installed on my current machine though so I can't really test it out. If it works, that'd be hella useful for scenarios in which you start with higher tier buildings, I'd think, since I bet the AI wouldn't try making Bronze Age units in the Stone Age.

Also, it might go without saying, but for timing, it would start when the game starts before the glitch is done.