Hello. I have built a web-based observer for live 0ad matches https://map.veredus.io It uses client-server architecture, so simulation does not happen in the browser. Browser only renders what server sends as a compressed stream. Right now it randomly runs 1v1 or 4v4 match with all players being AIs to demonstrate capabilities. I specifically asking @Dunedan and @Stan for permission/API to get live matches IPs/ports from lobby so that they can be broadcasted instead of soulless AI playing with themselves. I believe such a webpage is a good landing to attract more (potential) players. Some features(in random order): - desktop and mobile view - ~30MB of stream data per hour - assets served via CDN (2.4 GB full game, but only what is shown is downloaded, saved to local storage via Cache API) - translations from original game - WebGPU and WebGL fallback - playback control: pause, seek, rewind. - delay to live match to prevent scouting via observation - sharing with current time offset "I" key or four finger tap on mobile cycles through debug panels. Settings allow changing the visual enhancements. Please also share your ideas at to how this can be used. Any feedback is welcome.

@Thalatta, the only thing I'm questioning is that you single out a group of players as a minority that has co-opted the gameplay side of things and refuses to open up to "improvements". You don't name anyone in particular, but it's obvious which side you're pointing the finger at. And you started doing that very early on, right from the beginning of your time on the forum. We've discussed this several times already. You're not in a position to decide who represents the best vision for the game. As for my criticism of your contributions, I didn't mean to hurt your feelings so much that you'd feel the need to start listing them and even tagging people. It was a more general remark, evidently poorly worded, intended to question your lack of humility. I'm sorry.  But it's clear you're not the only one who thinks it's appropriate to single out particular groups of players as holding back the game's progress. Perhaps I'm the one who's wrong. Time will tell.

The competitive scene has held this game back in terms of gameplay. It's been like this for years. Almost a decade.

It's very nice of me to have included the underlined part, because the rest, and more, you can find in the first page of: What strikes me is your pretension that I can't possibly understand what's written there, or that I haven't seen similar things in other threads, or felt it in the game itself (that must explain your comical denial that I even play it!). When you posted there, why didn't you state how utterly offensive finger pointing is, or disrespectfully denigrate other's general contributions? What I said was not directed at anyone in particular, but refers to the issue in particular, while you jumped to belittle someone in particular, with ad hominems unrelated to the issue in particular. I was going to say it's utterly irrelevant if I know or not who they truly are, but it's actually in my favour since, again, my criticism is not directed at specifically anyone, but known philosophies (as in that thread), and you ought to learn all these differences already.   Fine, I just give pacing issues more weight than you, and while it's not just about training times, they are one of the first things one explicitly encounters. Batch training gets around pacing issues (lowering APM), but it's not optimal to ask all newbies to handle that from the start instead of queuing units one by one (more intuitive for many, for some time at least). And I think the different difficulty levels should behave along those lines also. All "basically, the single-player experience". Regarding competitiveness, I wouldn't even care if batching was faster than it is now for large batches to keep things almost unchanged for average batches, of course, all balance-pending, but you can't just insult, dismiss and deny the possible existence of an issue for which there are even threads already. And think way more carefully about your replies, because I'm going to answer next with a very telling paragraph made of quotes from that thread.   Everyone agrees with that, too bad you qualify the help (most through MP) @lilypoppy gets for his campaign, among other things you still lack any sensible grasp on, as demonstrating "so little". If anything, it's him who's in a position to evaluate that, not you, by any means. That's just how you get whoever is actually trying to collaborate on factors you mention are lacking to lose any interest in the project and leave.   I think sometimes the problem is the denial of how each aspect is seen by each group. That's why we all agree in improving the SP experience, but don't seem to agree on what that exactly means. I think the thread mentioned makes it clear how each side sees "training times" for example (as if that were not expected already, or a "data analysis study" was needed and not just a shut down attempt), and why I consider it another factor in the SP experience (which is extremely important because it relates to the vast majority of players, who play offline). Still, I've stated now and in the past that I don't support the removal of the competitive aspect by any means, even proposing a Normal and Competitive Presets (for parameters that cannot be harmonised), and Achievements to motivate players to gradually switch from one to the other to basically get more offline players and hoping to slowly convert some into online ones.

In the beginning  the concept of @Mythos_Ruler It was the one from the Grand campaign( the original), but then it was changed to the one from a more simple Grand camping from Wraitii. I never thought I'd see that original concept resurrected, and I'm eager to try it.