Forums

I think there first needs to be some change as to how the categories for the dropdown are set up. Right now one map category has to be called "Default" in order for it to be the default, which is not good. after that the procedure should be to better organize existing maps like I tried to do, and then remove truly redundant maps like Kerala. My thoughts are if there are only 10 to 20 maps per category. Things will be less overwhelming.

Maps removed could be moved into a "all maps" mod, so they're still available if somebody really wants to play them.

"Bad" maps can be challenging and the imbalanced design can be viewed as additional fun factor, especially if the map is pretty or "looks cool". Pompeii, for example, is a horrible map. But, it looks cool and the buildable layout provides some challenge to the player. A better criteria would be to either remove or update maps where the AI is broken. No use in keeping a map that's useless for SP.

This topic is important, but please don't delete too many maps. I like the lack of wood for some cards, but it could be mentioned in the card description. The new migration map is nice, but it clearly strays from the purpose of the migration; it's more of an island map. I understand that we don't want to have multiple versions of the same map because we have to make choices. But I prefer quantity over quality. Let's keep quality for the scenarios. It is possible to have a second version with gaia unit for some scenario? If a card is not of interest, put it in a separate category.  

Any update regarding this? I'd very much appreciate more quality over more quantity. Maybe an approach to proceed would be to group certain similar maps and unify or only keep one of them.

While I'm against "wild west" in competitive gaming (in extremes it will become a challenge of automation tools). I completely agree with the incentive to make game fair by-design. 1. In order to make game fair and truly transparent it is essential to play competitive matches without fog of war. I understand it is not THAT fun, but at least it eliminates a possible map reveal hack. 2. I do not agree with the quote above that sharing only relevant state is not possible and here is where I come from: I can easily play 0ad game via Parsec(remote desktop application). So my host computer simulates and renders 0ad, captures frames and sends me only video stream which is limited to 10 mbit/s. Total video stream lag is 20ms (encode 7ms, network(LAN) 13ms, decode 10ms) and game is very much playable. Which is an extreme edge case showing that sending only relevant information is possible. So let's derive a useful solution from that: if two players Alice and Bob want to play a very important competitive match I could host a game for them on my computer. Running two vanilla instances of 0ad, and give them access via remote desktop(be it parsec or whatever else). Thus they won't be able to reveal what's under fog of war in any way and their computers will never access the full simstate. This last example shows that it is ultimately possible to do that. I assume that video stream(knowing nothing about it's content) is way less optimized that the game could be. I also totally understand that my network is low latency and supporting less reliable connections is harder, but again if you look at a video stream it gets jelly and pixelated when network has hiccups, it doesn't make game OOS. @bb_ what do you think about this?

Are we playing the same game? No problem rushing or being rushed without being P3. Both in teams and in 1 vs 1 games. It is possible to capture buildings to damage someone.