Zagorath

joined 2 years ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 1 points 3 hours ago

I think I take a slightly softer position than you do, because in my view 250 W is a viable alternative to a car the majority of the time. It becomes a problem on very steep hills when carrying heavy loads, but most people are not doing that very often, and a better cycling network buildout (which is always my first priority) would reduce the need for it even further, if people had safe convenient routes around hills that didn't force them up and over unless either they want to take the shorter, harder route, or their destination is actually on the hill.

But I do still ultimately agree with you. Ideal world, we'd change it to allow them. It's more accessible to more people, and I cannot see much disadvantage, if the speed regulators work correctly.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 1 points 4 hours ago

I don't know in what world any comment ending with "I don't know why you think it is" could be read as anything but condescending.

You’re complaiing [sic] about legal e-bikes not doing specific tasks you want them to

Yes, she is. So am I. Because I want cycling to be accessible to everybody. Because of the massively lower cost of a bike compared to a car, and the massively lower risk of them, they have the inherent power to be much more accessible to a lot more people. Building better infrastructure is the most important part of that and we mustn't lose sight of that fact, but the laws governing how you ride are also relevant. In this case, ebike laws. EN15194 comes out of famously flat parts of the European peninsula. Hills are not as much of a factor there as they are here. For most people, most of the time, that's still sufficient.

But something as basic as being allowed to use your bike to go grocery shopping, or if somebody wanted to do something like Martin Broer in the UK and run a small tradie business out of an electric bakfiets, should be a legal option. In Dutton Park and Highgate Hill in Brisbane's inner south, or around Everton Park/Arana Hills in the northwest, that's just not going to work very well if you're not allowed any more than 250 W on your motor. Heck, even the lesser but still noticeable hills of St Lucia/Toowong/Indooroopilly might be a struggle if you're carrying a bunch of stuff.

If there's any task that forms part of people's daily lives that a bike can't do, I'm going to ask "why not?" and wonder if it would be appropriate to change things so that they can. In this case, the solution is obvious and simple.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 2 points 4 hours ago

Can you explain why?

Look at the comparison I did elsewhere in the thread. One hill I know of and have climbed many times, going up at just 12 km/h, I'm putting out over 500 W at some points. And that's on a carbon analogue bike, as a lighter-than-average dude, carrying nothing more than a bottle of water. I'm out of the saddle, working my arse off to get up that hill.

As a cycling advocate, that's unacceptably difficult. Great for when cycling for fun or fitness, but as an advocate, I do not want people to have to exert themselves that much just to get around. I try to set a baseline effort of 100 W, but up to 200 W for brief periods is not unreasonable. 250 W (plus a 250 W motor) when climbing up a hill even with the lightest possible load, which would easily become 500+ W (plus the 250 W motor) on the way home from shopping or transporting kids to their cricket training, is not reasonable. I want cycling to be accessible to as many people as possible. It has the potential to be a far more accessible form of transport than driving is, if our network design and laws allow it to be. A Dutch-style network is by far the most important thing and would work for 80%+ of potential cyclists, 60%ish of the time.

But to get that last 20% of cyclists 100% of the time, laws designed for the famously flat Netherlands are not necessarily appropriate. And that could include allowing up to 500 W motors. Especially with the NSW law, which states the power must be

progressively reduced as the bicycle’s speed increases beyond 6km/h.

So (assuming it's linear), at 16 km/h you'd be getting about 250 W of assistance, maximum. At 20 km/h you're down to 132 W, and at 23 km/h it's just 52 W. To do that 12 km/h up the hill I was talking about, you'd get about 340 W of assistance, or go down to 10 km/h and get 390 W, plus 1–200 W from your legs, which should be enough to get an older or less physically capable cyclist up the hill with their shopping or (grand)kids.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 0 points 20 hours ago

There're no real villains in Moana or Encanto, and the villain in Frozen doesn't play a role anywhere near as big as in classic or Renaissance era Princess movies. I've not seen Raya and don't really remember the plot of Brave, but I do see some people making similar comments about each of them.

Stepping a little outside the classic "Princess" genre, Inside Out, Elemental, Soul, and Turning Red don't really have villains either (according to what I'm reading—Inside Out is the only one I've actually seen).

For movies within this era that actually have proper villains, that leaves Luca, Wish, and Coco. As far as I can tell, that's it.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 8 points 1 day ago

The real problem that's not being explicitly talked about here is unregistered electric motorbikes being sold (often to children) as "ebikes". Vehicles that don't have pedals, or have only vestigial pedals, and are reaching speeds well over 25 km/h (often fast enough to keep up with cars in traffic) without any pedalling. Morrison's Government changed the rules to allow importing of these electric motorbikes, and there have been multiple deaths in SEQ over the past few months as a result. The change to ban the import and sale of these vehicles is absolutely a good one. Even if you think, as I do, that EN15194 is a bit too strict.

Also, as much as I am a vocal supporter of !fuckcars@lemmy.world and related movements, it's not exactly the same comparison. Ebikes can be ridden on bike paths, shared paths, and (except in 2 states) footpaths with pedestrians. They require zero licensing, and are often ridden by children. Quite different from driving a car, on roads (where a speed limit does apply), after qualifying for a driver's licence.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 5 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Yeah I think NSW's approach is pretty good. As you say, 250 W is a bit limited with heavy loads up hills. To put this into perspective, on my analogue bike, up one of the steepest hills I've ever climbed in Brisbane, I do about 400–500 W for about 20 seconds. Ebikes are all required to be pedal-assist, so let's assume a baseline of 100 W from the cyclist's legs (about what a casual cyclist who just wants to cruise along would do), plus the 250 W maximum output. That's 20 seconds where they're having to pedal extra hard, even if their total load (including bike, rider, and water) is comfortably under 90 kg. Make that a serious cargo bike (++kg) loaded with shopping, sports equipment, or kids (+++kg) and you're likely going to end up putting out more power with your legs than I do on my analogue bike even after you account for your motor assistance.

NSW also has a rule requiring the motors to smoothly taper their power. So at the 12 km/h I climb this particular hill at, you might get 400 W of assistance, but if you're getting up to 22 km/h it might be just 100 W[^1]. Basically, it naturally self-corrects for any risk that might be associated with higher power at higher speeds. EN15194, otoh, is 250 W flat. It allows peaking above that amount for a short time, but from what I can tell it's not clear how long that time is, or how it works in practice on compliant bikes.

A counterpoint to this take would be: the hill I'm describing is extremely steep, and chosen in part because it's steep. I'd go a different, easier route, if I wasn't on a training ride. And 90% of the time, most utility cyclists will have options that avoid climbs that steep. And also that perhaps it's not unreasonable to expect ebike users to put out more effort on hills than they do on the flat. Personally I find both of these arguments convincing enough if used against even higher power limits, but not convincing enough for me to oppose 500 W. Especially since I'm also in favour of increasing the speed cap from 25 km/h to 30 or 32 km/h (20 mph), since that's the speed I feel I can comfortably reach without too much effort on the flat, on an analogue bike.

[^1]: I made no attempt to actually do the maths on this. And I'm not sure if it's meant to be a linear drop-off or if some curve is applied anyway.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 4 points 1 day ago

A mandatory import approval through the federal government providing evidence a bike met the definition of an e-bike was removed in 2021, and replaced with an optional advisory notice.

So, the Morrison government is responsible for starting this whole thing by allowing people to import vehicles that are dangerous and illegal to actually ride.

However, a communiqué released on Friday reveals federal, state and territory transport ministers have agreed to reinstate reference to the European standard, EN15194, into the Road Vehicle Standards (Classes of Vehicles that are not Road Vehicles) Determination by the end of the year.

Thankfully, that loophole is being restricted. The vehicles already in the country are a problem, but at least no more will be entering.

In all states except NSW, currently EN15194 is used for what's road-legal, except NSW, where 500 W is allowed. But

“NSW will rapidly move to harmonise with that standard and with other states’ approach,” he said.

They're going to be moving to a more standardised approach.

Personally, I think NSW's 500 W might not be unreasonable, considering their laws also require the amount of power put out to smoothly decrease as you get above 6 km/h, whereas EN15194 is 250 W, flat, until you hit 25 km/h. Having more power might be especially useful for people with cargo bikes who need to go up steep hills with their shopping, sport gear, or kids.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 4 points 1 day ago

That's interesting. I wonder why they're calling it "world first" then. I can think of three main possibilities:

  1. There's some nuance here in the specifics. Like maybe the Canadian version has minimum pay but not insurance, or vice versa? Or the way the pay rate is set is different?[^1]
  2. That "in some places" caveat you added. "World first" for it to be national, instead of done at the provincial level, maybe?
  3. Sheer bluster. Made up. Not true.

[^1]: For better, or for worse. For example, maybe in Canada the following is not true: "The deal does not include penalty rates for things such as working late at night and, Veen says, the minimum hourly rate does not apply to time spent waiting between delivery jobs."

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 1 points 2 days ago

The group I'm looking to migrate is much, much smaller than that, so it's not something I've considered. But a quick search tells me that it should be fine with those numbers.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 2 points 2 days ago

The ITEE department at my uni had a newsgroup. One professor actually actively used it for his course, circa 2015. That was pretty much the only time I ever used it.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 2 points 2 days ago

Eww, Red Letter Media? I thought we had collectively finally agreed that their low-effort nitpicking style of media criticism was crap back around the time Nostalgia Critic and Cinema Sins got cancelled. I honestly can't believe RLM was ever popular. Beyond the fact that it agreed with the then-consensus of "perqels bad!!!1!1!!!", I've never been able to see any redeeming qualities to it. Asinine attempts at comedy, shallow analysis, wilfully misinterpreting the text. I've not watched it since the first time I saw it over a decade ago, but all it did was harden me in my stance that the prequels are actually not that bad, and the haters are just morons who hate anything different from exactly what they were already expected. (I'll admit, I have since softened on that stance and can recognise the many flaws in the prequels, but they're still a lot better than RLM gives them credit for, and their approach is certainly not good film criticism.)

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 10 points 3 days ago (4 children)

Personally I thought Rogue One was ok in cinemas, but I found it hard to care very much about the characters, so it wasn't any better than "ok".

Rewatching it after Andor really lifted it for me, because now I did have an investment in the characters to a much greater degree.

 

Link to full thread

TranscriptionTweet by Sandy Petersen @SandyofCthulhu:

One of the most fun civs for me to work in for Age of Empires: The Rise of Rome were the Palmyrans. They were also pretty obscure. I needed three civilizations to face off against Rome. For Rome's early days, I had the Macedonians (Epirus, for instance). For middle Rome I had Carthage. And for late Rome, I had to kind of go looking for a bad guy. I guess I could have had Huns or Goths, but Goths were already in the game, and Huns were soooo late that Rome was already Christian.

But I knew history, and I knew about the short-lived empire of Palmyra, and it's famous sexy queen Zenobia. How do I know she was sexy? Because historic movies & TV series have taught me that EVERY ancient queen was sexy. It's the rule.

Anyway Palmyra built itself initially on trade from Rome, but then it decided it deserved its own kingdom, and spread out. Though the major part of the Palmyran threat was only 50 years or so, it was a real menace to Rome. How do we know? The Romans said so. And they would know. Palmyra stood a sizable chance of taking down the eastern Roman Empire and actually did seize Egypt. If she could also get Anatolia, she'd control the vast majority of Roman wealth. If Zenobia's plan worked out, she would rule a more powerful nation than Rome and could dictate whatever terms she pleased. Fortunately for Rome, they saw the threat and Aurelian managed to crush Palmyra, capture Zenobia, and save the day.

Zenobia might well have won if she'd gotten more Persian support, or if Rome had been then ruled by someone like Commodus, Michael Ringas, or Elagabalus. Sadly, it was Aurelian, who was competent. Maybe she should have assassinated him. After all, when Aurelian DID die, his widow took over, and didn't do a great job of it. Finally the senate chose an elderly senator for the job. So yeah, bad luck for Zenobia.

Anyway, on to the Palmyran civilization for Rise of Rome!

1/

Text of other partsBecause Carthage and Macedonia were both heavy military civs, I decided to have Palmyra be an interesting economy civ.

I started right out with giving them super-villagers. They had protective armor and worked 20% faster. However, I made their villagers cost 75 food instead of 50. This I felt would make Palmyra really interesting, because it totally changes the early game. So from the get-go you're focused on keeping track of what's going on. You can't just run on automatic.

I say that I gave them 20% extra work speed, and I did, but it wasn't that simple. You see, villagers do more than just gather stuff. They gather stuff. Then they walk to their drop site and dump it off, then they walk back to the gather point, path around their co-workers, and finally start working again. There's delay in all this, and I couldn't really avoid it. So in order to give them the +20% promised, I actually gave them extra, so that needing to walk around wouldn't reduce it too much. I'm told that in fact it ended up being something like 40-45% faster for most tasks, and about 33% faster for woodcutters and fishermen.

But another reason for this is I kept upgrading the work rate for the Palmyrans so they could keep up but left the description the same, still saying they got +20%. I didn't get called on it so ...

Now you start with 200 food in Age of Empires, and I didn't change this. This means that a normal civ can queue up 4 villagers immediately, while you can only do 2 (with 2/3 of a villager's food cost left over). So you need to get your dudes working as fast as possible! This was changed in the Definitive Edition to give Palmyra +75 food so you could dawdle around a little more. Wimps. Or maybe this was smart, because I'm told they actually also nerfed the villager work rate to a flat 25% instead of what I'd done. So the villagers were lazier and you had more food to pay for them. Well, as always, making the game more vanilla DOES make it better balanced. But not necessarily more fun.

/2


Palmyrans were famously rich, so I had two gold boosts for them. First, when you pay Tribute in Age of Empires, it gets taxed. Not for Palmyra. They get the full amount, which makes them the right guy to send money to. They also get more gold from their trade carts & ships. I think I originally had double the gold, but now it's been nerfed.

I realize both these bonuses are only good if you are playing a team game, but most of our games WERE team games by this time, and we assumed lots of other players were in the same boat. My apologies if we were wrong.

I had added Camels to the game for Rise of Rome, and Palmyra, based out of Syria, was an obvious choice for a camel bonus, so I made theirs 25% faster. They could strike in and out of your town quickly, and the high gold cost of camels wasn't as big a deal for Palmyra. This was their only military bonus - my logic was that they had such an interesting economy, balancing super villagers with regard to cost & work rate, they wouldn't need a lot of other nit picky things to worry about.

It did work though. Palmyrans were probably the most popular civ in Rise of Rome, and I think it's because of their weird economy. Also they were the only civ that specifically had a camel rider bonus. So I feel they were a complete and utter success.

/end

 

The statement from the Infrastructure and Transport Ministers' meeting: https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/itmm-communique-21-november-2025.pdf

The same statement from WeRide on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/werideaustralia/posts/pfbid0KpgL2Xxi54XVQNk557nVm9SXCFwVvtu6VtW7GbMSDcCRkwYKh2imTuAFSRfAni65l

The statement in text:We celebrate reinstatement of e-bike standard

In a welcome announcement celebrated by bicycle riders and the industry this afternoon, the Australian Infrastructure and Transport Ministers have announced the reinstatement of the internationally accepted standard for e-bikes.

The announcement came in the Ministerial Communique this afternoon and states,

‘Ministers agreed to work towards a regulatory framework for e-mobility devices to ensure safe and consistent supply and use of these devices in the Australian market, while still promoting mobility and innovation.’

A framework is still being developed, however in the interim, the Communique says,

‘To supplement this (new framework), and to assist importers, the Commonwealth will reinstate the EN-15194 standard and meet with relevant stakeholders to ensure the use of this standard is well understood and supported.’

We Ride Australia and Bicycle Industries Australia could not be happier that this global standard has been reinstated after it was deleted from the import framework governing e-bikes in 2021.

This announcement responds directly to the advocacy of calls from Bicycle Industries Austra, We Ride Australia and Australian bicycle organisations which has been determinant in achieving this outcome. We look forward to continuing to assist Governments at all levels as they work to establish a robust national framework to stop unsafe product reaching Australian consumers.

BIA General Manager Peter Bourke said,

“This is a sensational outcome for the Australian bicycle industry,
“EN15194 is the leading e-bike standard around the world, and its reinstatement will address the impacts of poor-quality and unsafe imports.”

WeRide’s Stephen Hodge said,

“e-bikes are booming globally,

“They provide healthy, safe and affordable mobility for the more than half of all trips each day that are less than 5km,

“The reinstatement of EN15194 means Australians will have the confidence to know the e-bikes they buy for themselves, and their children are safe and fit for purpose.”

 

Link to full thread.

TranscriptionWhen I managed to convince my bosses to let me do the Rise of Rome expansion for Age of Empires, obviously the Romans needed to be the centerfold and show a lot of skin, so to speak. Now, the Rise of Rome was the best expansion in the entire history of video games (up to that point). We added playable factions, new units, new upgrades, new campaigns. No one had ever done that before. I am really proud of what we did.

So making the Romans. I had two goals. First, I wanted the Romans to FEEL Roman. I wanted the player to feel like Caesar, commanding his legions & auxiliaries to wipe out the puny foes. Second, I wanted the Roman bonuses to be simple, straightforward, and obvious.

Lots of the Age of Empires civ bonuses are subtle, or only become clear after you've played for a while. But I didn't want that for the Romans. I wanted players to immediately start talking up the Romans in forums and elsewhere - to evangelize the Rise of Rome. This meant they couldn't have weird or esoteric advantages. It had to be easy to understand, so a player could just say, "Wow! The Romans get X!" X, of course being awesome.

You have to remember that no one had ever done an expansion like this - we were NOT sanguine about its success. I mean, I felt it would be a hit, but things can always go wrong, and the Homo habilis creatures that dominate MicroSoft's marketing and advertising could easily screw up, with their tiny over-caffeinated brains. ROMA REGNAT 1/

[A screenshot of the game, showing a Roman colosseum]

Text of other partsFamously, the Romans used swordsmen in battle. This was almost unique among pre-gunpowder civilizations. Almost everyone used spears. Of course Romans used spears too, they just threw them before charging into battle. You could make a case that the "real" Roman main weapon was actually the scutum.

But yeah I had to use swordsmen for them. Now Age of Empires swordsmen aren't anyone's favorite. They don't have lots of health. They're not fast. They're not ranged. They ARE cheap at least. When facing hoplites, cavalry, or archers, they get skunked. What could I do? Well, one thing I COULDN'T do was give them extra health. The Choson civilization already had that as a bonus, and I didn't want to copy them.

Well the easiest thing to do is increase their attack. I had the Roman swordsmen attack 50% faster. This is h uge actually. If you understand the Lancaster numbers, it means a Roman swordsman is 2.25x as good as a normal one. Now, this has drawbacks. If you're attacking catapults or archers, it doesn't help a bit. Butt it pays off once you close in.

SALVETE ROMAM

2/


Picture this - you are attacked by Roman swordsmen. Naturally you pump out some archers or hoplites or (if you have them) elephants. But the Romans are caving in your buildings 50% faster. While you are training archers, suddenly your Archery Range crumbles. You try to train cavalry, but you get "housed" as the Roman swordsmen burn out your slums. You send villagers to build new houses and the Romans kill them in record time. Speed has a quality all its own.

Faster killing is at its most effective when used by skilled players, but we figured early adopters of Rise of Rome would be above average.

We have now made swordsmen pretty cool. What's next? Famously the Romans had ballista as a standard battlefield weapon. So yeah a Ballista bonus, and I had the perfect bonus. Just simply give them +1 range. Let's unpack this. If you are attacking enemy ballistas, your ballistas shoot first. Then their ballistas need to roll forward to get in range and shoot back. But now your ballistas in the second rank can still hit the enemy, but their rear-rank ballistas have to maneuver to the sides, since the front row is full of ballistas already. This takes even longer for them to get into action, meanwhile you are hitting them.

My example is ballista vs. ballista, but it applies to any range combat. That +1 range really makes more of a difference than one might think. One feature is that usually the first time you realize the Romans are in town comes when a bunch of bolts hits your woodcutters from off-screen.

Having good ballistas is also synergistic for the Romans. One of the main cheap counters to swordsmen is archers, and ballistas devastate archers. So fielding a swordsman/ballista army is a good combo, and you look pretty damn ROMAN as you order them forward. Of course there are plenty of units that can kill ballistas but the swordsman horde should be a comfort.

ROMA VINCIT

/3


I felt I had a solid military for Rome. But I needed a good economic bonus. Many economic bonuses in Age of Empires were picky or just focused on a single resource. The Yamato's only econ bonus was in fishing, which obviously sucked on all-land maps.

Rome needed an easy to understand bonus that helped everything. My first idea was to give them an instant resource reward each time they Aged up. This not only would give them an incentive to advance, but provide immediate funds for an army. It didn't seem "Roman" enough though. Anywhere there's one of the great unused bonuses from Age of Empires.

What I ended up doing is having ALL their buildings (except walls) cost 10% less. This meant they could build houses a little sooner. They could lay down mills sooner. They could build town centers cheaper. It also helpes their military by making barracks and siege workshops cheaper. Not much - a Roman storage pit costs 315 instead of 350. But that's enough wood for part of a house.

Also, this cheap building thing lasts forever. It's ALWAYS good. My theoretical "extra Aging resources" would wear off, but the cheap buildings are helping you even in the late game. I mean it's always nice to build a barracks near the enemy town 10% sooner, right?

I decided the Romans needed a defensive boost too, based on their famous ability to defend their camps. Something to give them time to put together their longsword/ballista army. I went with towers, and had them cost only 90 stone instead of 150. I realize this is a huge bonus, but I needed a huge bonus to entice the Romans into building towers, since they're fundamentally an attack civ. This would let them rely on defenses early on, risking an enemy rush, so they could attack with a zillion troops in Iron Age.

The goal was for Roman towers to be up before anyone else's, hopefully before the Shang come raiding with their crappy cavalry. An unexpected use was that you could build towers in an enemy town cheap, but I didn't think of that while designing the bonus.

Towers are also a mobile, flexible defense, & that seemed Roman.

ODIMUS ROMAM

/4


Did I succeed? Yes and no. The Romans were fun, and got played a lot. They didn't dominate the game as I'd expected. Usually when I saw people talking about Rise of Rome online, they talked up the Palmyrans or Carthage, possibly because they had whack econ bonuses that required lots of discussion. Plus they had weird units (camels & elephants).

The Romans became the "good quiet kid" who sits on the edge of the class and gets ignored. Everyone likes him kinda, but no one LOVES him. Oh well. They were still the hero of the campaign and I'll forever stand by the fact they are fun & easy to play. That might be why they weren't discussed so much - they are so straightforward no one needed to whine online.

ROMA EST MAXIMA

/end

 

S: AoE2:DE, SC:R, C&C:R, AoM:R, SH:C:DE. A: AoE:DE. B: AoE2:HD, AoE3:DE, SH:DE, AoM:EE, Homeworld:R. C: SH:L: Steam, SH2: Steam, SH:HD, SH:C:HD. D: Halo Wars: DE, WC: Remastered. WC3: Reforged

In the comments of the video he also mentions Rome Remastered and Dune 2000 - C and B tier

 
view more: next ›