All Activity

We gave them bonuses in Historical via aura. My understanding is currently formations don't quite work, you cant attack in formation. So the only way to apply bonuses is through auras. Hopefully it is something that will get looked at and implemented in the future. Its a great idea!

Ritualistic Exercise sounds great

An interestic point of 0 A.D is the battle formation of most of the faction in the game: Phalanx for Greeks, Testudo for Romans, etc. But, does not exist are battle formation bonuses, wich is a drawback because it´s necesary. Melee units die very quickly againts ranged units, witch make very hard to invade enemy city and forces the player to use specific units like cavalry, rendering melee units useless. The necesary solution is implement battle formation bonuses for each faction in the game, add defence bonus againts melee attack to Phalanx and testudo formation, and add defence bonus againts ranged attack with a shield wall formation. Here an example of Celt shield wall formation:

See also: ticket #6760

I dont think its a "strict violation", but your goal is to obfuscate the code so its harder to determine what the mod is actually doing, which kinda goes against the concept of free (as in freedom) software? I think?

Prevent it from being able to use multiplayer for that.

Yes. market would signal suspicion. Still very niche scenario, FFA with 0 spec. Rare. Not a giant problem. If suspicious, watch replay after and expose cheater to rest of players(ik ofc huge hassle and no1 will care anyway prob). Obv a fix would be nice.

I don't test stuff when I'm playing. I test it when I am spec. I don't have enough apm to type code and play simultaneously

V02 is only a bug fix version. It should work now. It works in my one player replay and in the initial replay on which I set it up. Thanks for the report.

Can confirm. Made a short replay just doing it and its not recognized. I tested the mod on a multiplayer replay where it worked. I will check whats different. It is running though and detects 30s afk for example.

I just installed the mod, activated it and then I checked out a singleplayer replay where the market exploit was tested. But I couldn't see that this exploit was recognized...

Yeah, the other players may also just like to test out the market glitch now (or something else). And that is annoying to the other 7 players. One could still have games where all mods are allowed and games where one can play the game without having to worry the other players are "just testing something".

I mean, A26 is done. Lol I'd say allow renaming in single player

It should work also in singleplayer replays. Rapid fire alarm could be triggered false in mp replay if the game lags online but not offline since the turn time is not logged. Or did you maybe work around a trigger?

The topic here is not quality of code or variable names, but code obfuscation. The point in the license is Section 1 "source code". GPL authors clarify that "[...] Obfuscated “source code” is not real source code and does not count as source code. [...]". This is not sufficient to be compliant with GPL3, and not sufficient to qualify as FOSS. Obfuscated code violates Freedom #2 of Free Software as clearly explained here. But besides the "legal" part... if you are a developer who cares about free software (as autociv does), then you will also understand that distributing source code made intentionally hard to be understood is contrary to the purpose and principles of Free Software itself.

It can be ruled out for all cases because it's not the host that's relaying messages. I would like to test some features for mods or even future patches in practical conditions, i.e. a 4v4 game. If mod signing prevents me from testing and editing the patch on the fly then that would be annoying. I like the most recent versions of your Oddity detector. It flags out afk players and automation users in a non-offensive way

It doesn't work in singleplayer replays?

Of course wrong accusations are bad. I heard some that were too wild too. On the other hand this described cheats are cheats and methods we know of. I would not rule out that e.g. players reveal the map. The oddity detector itself is also just a workaround. If we had something better, like mod signing, I'd drop it since it monitors the players. I made a trainer mod based on autociv for a26 once. It was nice for spectating and reviewing build orders but could be abused easy. That's why I dropped it. This can also lead quickly to information overload. Best method for players atm. is just to play with trusted players which is also annoying. The only cheat we can rule out is reading the enemy chat if the host is trusted (as I understand it atm.).

I don't understand, what is in violation of the license? At no point did the license mention restrictions on the names of variables and quality of code By introducing waffles and misleading variable names, I'm not denying the user access to anything. I'm just presenting a more messy version of the the product. With enough patience, the user can still understand which variable is which. The source code is freely available as always.

This is nice example of positive contribution to 0ad. Higly appreaciate your work.

Yeah, but it's only your choice to use them or not. Not so in a MP game with cheaters. My reasoning was that, with more SP content, players will have more choice and not be affected by the cheating MP scene as much.

yes but also make it available for renaming! like in rise of nations! ofc, if youre scared of misuse just bar anyone from inserting racial slurs and such

I dont really think cheating in mp is the reason we need more sp content, but we would definitely profit from more sp content. That being said, there are some great minds already at work to make it happen afaik, so be patient

This would be a violation of autociv's license. And for good reasons, as explained here: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

0-0