All Activity

I'm in favor of unifying them. For a accurate rating one needs a certain amount of recent games. This split could be done for players that play enough 1v1s and tgs. This would be nice, but would only work if the player base where higher. See also: Would it be possible to have a rating system for games outside of 1v1s? LocalRatings mod Where I already wrote my opinions LR is not accurate for a lot of players I'd prefer team elo like AOE2 (or here as video) From time to time I look in to LR to try to implement team elo (or glicko-2 or whatever) but I never can get my foot in the door or have other stuff to do. But it should not be so hard to start each player with 1200 iterate over all games in chronicle order distribute score per elo system Next little caveat would be that a lot of tgs don't end with a certain victory but that 3 of 4 resigns and the host ends the game. That could change if the host is interested in the score distribution.

I commend you on getting all that metal with female only economy. But, it should be easier in a team game if you get a lot of traders. Plus, your ally can send you his excess metal. Anyway, CS have an inherent advantages - low cost and fast training time. 60 Roman Hastati cost you only 600 metal, which is pennies for such a fighting force (that can be buffed by Centurions and later turned into Legionaries).

I’m not sure if trying to unify team game and single player ratings would work well. I think we need 3 items, not in any particular order, to bring legitimacy back to the ratings. Constrain settings for rated games so that serious maps and map sizes are used (looking at you polar sea). I’d love to add a “balanced” random map category for this. Implement a basic matchmaking option without replacing lobby rated 1v1s. This would lead to more match variety if there’s enough players, and everyone’s ratings would be more interdependent. make 1v1s more enjoyable. Right now I’d say that team games are simply more fun than 1v1s, and a lot of great players just don’t care that much about playing 1v1s.

@Stan`Remember I'm still kinda a nub when it comes GitHub. Until you just said something, it didnt occur to me. But now Ill try and see if i can find it and make sense of the formula.... but i wouldnt quite know where to even look as far as folders/branches whatever they are called Yeah actually this alone maybe enough help, or even 1000, would take longer/be harder to farm new accounts.

I look like Lichtenstein or Luxembourg

Well, since I posted this, I have tried it in a teamgame, and together with my pocket (who had a normal cs army), my 50 roman sword champs decimated two opposing cs armies while fighting under 2 forts and a cc. I am also not sure why you think spartiates would be so much stronger than roman or iberian swordsman, why persian or selecid champ cav would be so much stronger than gaulish or roman champ cav and why you disregard the champ pikeman, which are still the most "tanky" unit? Probably every champ wins against 3 citizen soldiers of his type at once (although I have yet to test this).

It might be possible, but it is not really optimal. I'm not sure which champions or CS are we talking about? If it's Persian and Seleucid spear cavalry, yeah. 40 Spartiates will also decimate pretty much anything. Anything else will hardly beat a full, balanced CS army. Please, hold that thought. While watching the Age of Empires 2 DE casts, I've noticed an absurd situation of people having 100 or more Villagers and almost no army. Like literally 5 Scouts and a few Pikes or Archers. The games were either decided in the Feudal age Scout Cavalry rush or they turned into a turtle boomfest that we here all know and love. Which often ends in the trebuchet or bombard cannon wars. So, for all intents and purposes, we should do our own thing. At least it leaves a bloody mess once two huge armies collide. Also, let's not introduce some new thing that will need to be balanced for years. We have experience with rushed changes, already.

Maybe we just need to lower the initial rating from 1200 to something like 800. Many new players aren't 1200, they are much weaker.

You know everything is open source and currently on GitHub right?

The paintings (DeviantArt, username: coricancha) are created by an anthropologist trained especially in the material culture of ancient Latin America, visual studies, and digital reconstruction – resulting in historically informed and visually precise representations.

https://www.deviantart.com/coricancha

Try telling that to Michael Jordan, Michael Phelps or Bobby Fisher (I dont know as much about him thought) Winning = fun competitive games = fun playing 1600 who is really 1200 is a waste of time and not fun

Playing and having fun would be the best rating you'd ever have.

I guess i havent played many other games with rating systems. Just starcraft. IF i recall correctly you cant play diamond players if ur in bronze? You have to move up first.... and this game is so small and complex, differnt there are so many new players new accounts, its really easy to "farm" points. But hey if eveyrone likes having fake 1500, 1600, 1700 players, keep it as is i guess.

It's not impossibly hard but also not easy, because the way that the current lobby bot decides rating change is by waiting for the simultaneous resignation / victory reports from both players in the 1v1. Then it does a simple comparison and issues a rating change. In a TG, if the reports don't come in simultaneously, I'm not sure how the bot will handle it. This is not a client-side issue but a WFG lobby bot issue which I have no access to. I am not sure what kinds of information are stored for each account by the moderators / lobby servers. If it stores creation dates / total logins etc that would be great.

- it's okay that the system just takes the result into account, it's irrelevant how close it was. In many other games it's like this too. - it's ok that people can play rated matches against players who are much lower rated. if they lose, they lose a lot of points... - we need a rating system for team games too. Shouldn't be that hard....

Taking account of non-1v1 games would be a very good start, because that can indicate who is truly newbie and who is an unrated player but has played many games (Pandravabal). Sadly this has been discussed for 11 years but still no implementation https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/issues/2516

It's hard to summarise a player in a single number. At this point I would just use LocalRatings. It is not 100% reliable, but it is very good at analysing specific aspects of gameplay, for example the eco skills and fighting skills. You can adjust the weights to see who is the best at each skill. You can also download replays from replay Pallas to get more reliable estimates of each player when you are trying to balance a 4v4

Pretty sure there has been some debate on the current rating system, it has its flaw for sure. I dont have a full proof way to fix it. Nor do I know the coding needed/required. BUT i do think that you should be able to still "gain" points if you play a +100 or 200 player form your level and play really close. Also maybe you can only play rated games if you are within X of a player, try and prevent some of the fake ratings/people who are willing to play 100000 games and get 1 point each so they can get to 1600, 1700 etc. Any suggestions/thoughts/ideas on how to improve rating games for all?

From 16 to 22 there was a game breaking unit that everyone agreed not to make (after a few month in the alpha). a23 felt "done". Now balancing started over again and when this model is "done" I fear a new model will be introduced (like historical) by new members that won't reach a mature state like a23. I also like the more diverse civs like the old ptols with free houses that took long to build (although they were always a bit OP).

Answering A21 would be pure nostalgia.. I don't want to spit on the latest features so i go for A23 lol

Hey @Dakara, I've edited the poll and added A21, as it is indeed a major release.

Bonjour j'ai commencé A21 je suppose tellement impossible pour moi de voter i liked when all civ didnt have ram etc.

Now that there will be no more alpha releases, it's time to declare the best alpha release we had. The poll mentions some more significant alphas with major changes (but not truly old ones). You're free to vote in the comments for some other version. I personally love A27 as I've been playing it the most, but will vote A23 as the last "old-school" version of 0 A.D. It has a specific feel that some later alphas lost. Even the artwork is "more serious" to me, personally. Why I believe A23: Ken Wood stands out as the best release so far: 1) Much leaner on resources and disk size, 2) Artwork that stands out more, has that gritty feel that makes you want to stare at the icons, 3) Fortress produces "unique" champion units for most civs, while others have a special building for them, 4) Much tougher AI, that will end you if you're not careful. This is perhaps a consequence of it being able to produce champions earlier, without having to research a tech, 5) Named in honor of one of the founding members of the game, 6) Unit dialog screen introduced, allowing for more descriptive entities, etc.