Forums

Have a match history that records rated games that anyone can view and report in game[saparated by version] and the details in it are there: - Map name, type of season, population limit, win condition such and such. - Game number[Individual for each player and the global number]. - Mod used. - Duration [Any games thats ends under 15 minute or lower increases the lower it gets, the suspicion of the player]. - Players involve[trust level - your idea to implement - they are the ones who will help report] and their faction played[totalled - individual faction]. - Action Per Minute or Population Per Minute. - Did the game end with surrender/quit? - Was there any vulgar comments being used - flag the match, if so censor but keep it for proof, only the mods can read it. - Score at the end. However to be honest if they want to exploit rating points by doing such exploit which any games under 10 minutes or it triggers a condition(mods preference) will be flagged, might as well disable their stats and flag the account as smurf by the system, if they want to have unflag their match needs to be reviewed and need to talk it out with the mods. I don't know if my comment is out of reach in the idea or out of topic, if so my bad but I want to contribute however I can.

It seems there are no bots at all, they all have similar power in 1v1 matches. Although they defeated Petra in my test matches, according to the user above, they are easily defeated. However, if you want to experiment, you can download any bot from here and play on large maps or larger, with unlimited population and deathmatch resources, and you can wait a bit for them to power up (although Petra doesn't wait for them). Anyway, I'm fixing early game issues for them (they are strong in the late game), so if you're still interested, you can come back and try them out.

There is an ELO rating system implemented in the MP Lobby for 1v1's. A notorious problem with it is that it doesn't handle matches where one of the players disconnected before it was over, these matches simply aren't counted. Some players exploit this by leaving or closing matches when they realise they are about to be defeated, in order not to lose any rating points. This obviously goes against the rules, which is why this thread exists for reporting it: However, I think we can all agree that, ideally, bypassing the rating system like this wouldn't even be possible in the first place. This would save players the frustration and moderators the work of checking submitted replays. While talking about it in this thread the following idea came up:   There are two cases of players quitting, firstly the one hosting the match, and secondly the one who joined the hosted game (the client). - If the client leaves, currently, the match continues, just without anyone controlling one side. If the host now finishes the match as usual by defeating the opponent (who doesn't defend himself anymore since the client left), it should still count as a win for the host and as a defeat for the client. If the client disconnected for a different, valid reason and planned to return, he should communicate that to the host beforehand. I'd argue it's the clients' responsibility to ensure they have a somewhat stable internet connection, so that they aren't completely disconnected frequently, and when they are, can still rejoin quickly. The downside is that it incentivizes hosts not to wait for the client to come back, since they no longer have to. - If the host leaves, currently, the match is immediately ended, without the client having a chance to continue the match in the same way as proposed for the host. In that case, the game should count as a win for the client. I know this sounds harsh, but as far as I can tell from the code, this only happens if the host manually exits the match or terminates the program. If the host only loses internet connection, all clients (one, if it's a 1v1) are disconnected from the match, but they are able to reconnect as the match itself on the host side persists. So the only way this can happen unintentionally is if the computer crashes, but again, that's probably something the host is responsible to ensure that it doesn't happen.   What do you think? Is there anything I'm missing? An issue I can think of is that it enables hosts to exploit the system by starting a match, immediately kicking the client or blocking his connection deliberately in another way, and then being able to easily win the game and still be awarded rating points. Although, that's something that should just be reported as well.

what's the hardest, most toughest to beat bot we've got here?

Protectorate isn't significantly different in power from the other two bots, as they share similar logic. The difference lies in the tribute and troop deployment mechanics, so if you've defeated the other two bots, you'll likely defeat it as well.