Leaderboard

I hope non development screenshots are allowed if not I apologize in advance. Just took a few nice pictures from my latest skirmish. I love how believable and full of life cities end up looking in 0ad, it is a nice change of pace to be able to build a huge city compared to AoE3 which is the other RTS I play the most. The map was the one with the river on a 3v3 vs the AI. Sadly my AI teammates died just when i was pushing through one of the enemy bases. The first picture is minutes before the onslaught. It also didn't help that I really don't understand how to play Carthage lol

Hello everyone! I hereby present a 0 A.D. mod aimed at evaluating the rating of players. Official mod page on GitLab here. Introduction Before diving into the description, let me introduce the problem this mod aims to solve. In 0 A.D., the ELO system is used to rank players in the lobby. This is good; but is it representative of the players' skills? As you know, the rating system in 0 A.D. only takes into account 1v1 rated games. Team games do not contribute to the ELO score of a player, as well as 1v1 unrated games. Also, the scoring system only takes into account the outcome of a game (victory/defeat) and not the "performance" during the game. Can we do better? This mod uses statistics. It extracts data from all the replays of games you (the mod user) have played. So, if you have played 20 games (1v1s, team games, other..) with a player in the lobby whose name is (for example) strangeJokes, the mod will assign a rating to strangeJokes based on the 20 games you've played with them. The rating system The functioning of the rating system is described in detail here, but in short what it does is: it considers the average performance of the player during the entire game (and not only at game's end). the rating assigned to a player is a percentage: for example, a player with a rating of 5.00 performs a 5% better than other players on average, while a player with a rating of -5.00 performs a 5% worse than other players on average. you can customize the rating system by giving more importance to military, economy, exploration or other factors to the aim of calculating ratings. Keep in mind that this mod is based on statistics; data are taken from your (the mod user) replays. Statistics might not be fully representative of reality; therefore, a player's rating could be inaccurate, especially if you have played few games with that player. The more you play with a player, the more accurate the rating of that player is. Installation ‣Recommended: LocalRatings can be downloaded from the game menu: Settings > Mod Selection > Download Mods. ‣Alternatively: Click here to download the latest release. Install following the official 0 A.D. guide: How to install mods? Alternative downloads: Latest Release (.pyromod) | Latest Release (.zip) | Older Releases Latest version announcement Explanatory pictures Contribute The public repository is at this page. Everybody is very welcome to contribute, suggest, fork or simply give feedback. Have fun!

I think acceleration may effectively do this. I don't have svn tho.

I think this would just lead to frustration since you can't always decide whether units go into forests. It also does not have the level of control that the wall improvements I outlined could offer. It is also worth noting that forests are already slower for units to travel through and this means that cavalry caught in them will take more losses as they try to escape defenders or approach a target.

Yes, we must open a ticket for this. @Freagarach

merc cav are OP in a25 and I predict they will still be OP in a26, just less so. I don't think the merc-rush strategy should become weak, I just think there should be more options to counter it besides 1: rush before enemy makes mercs 2: make your own cav both of which are situational and are not always useful to protect against merc cav. I think the solution comes down to walls, we need to improve walls ease of placement so that they are used not to irritatingly slow down the game, but to be placed skillfully in anticipation of harassment. The suggestions here are not to make walls/palisades stronger overall, but to allow them to better fill their purpose. increase ease of placement of stone walls/palisades. This could be done by tolerating some overlap of structures or resources. Since stone walls can't be placed out of territory, perhaps they could be built through forests deleting the trees upon wall completion. decreasing hp of stone walls by around 500-1000. The changes would probably make stone walls more common, and the hp decrease is to prevent this from slowing down gameplay giving melee cavalry .5x counter versus palisades. This gives a defending player more time to bring in infantry, but does not make palisades stronger versus infantry and rams; units that don't have the same raiding capability that palisades are intended to protect against. increase turret positions of stone walls to 16. This is a more practical amount that might make a difference in a battle. tell me what you think please.

Short answer: I would personally balance a TG by balancing the total ratings of the two teams. However, let me be prudent in giving a definitive answer. One big fact to take into account is that the rating heavily depends the weights you choose. Different weights can give rise to very different ratings. The weights are supposed to change the "meaning" you give to the rating. But once you have decided upon the weights to choose, it's true what you say: the more games you played, the more reliable ratings are. Yes, the amount of spent resources could be a weight to add, thanks for suggesting. Regarding the ratio, ratios can't be used as weights for the following reason: the rating of a player is determined by comparing the player's parameters with the average game parameters, so at some point a division occurs in the calculation. Ratios can sometimes be close to 0 (or to infinity), and we all (well.. many of us) know what happens if a number close to 0 (or to infinity) is at the denominator. Actually, during the early stage of the mod development I have considered including ratios (like k/d ratio, resources sold/bought, tributes sent/received, ...) and results were odd, to say the least. The number 10 is the correct one. The "Exploration Score" (the same one that you can see in the Summary at the end of a game), is obtained by multiplying the percentage of explored map by 10.

Just saw a pretty positive review of Fallen Earth Classic by Josh Strife Hayes. Slightly flawed free to play post-apocalypse MMO, no cash shop. Some say it's better than Fallout 76, so you might want to check it out at the outlet of your choice.

Hi everyone, with this new update (v0.25.6) of the LocalRatings mod, one can filter out matches with a given number of players, number of teams, or matches with uneven team composition. For example, one can exclude all 1v1 matches from the rating computation; or, conversely, one can consider 1v1 matches only! See image below. Thanks to sanafur who suggested the update! Download: as usual, you can download the new release (v0.25.6) of the mod from the zip file attached to this post or from the zip file attached to the first post of this thread or from the official page. LocalRatings-v0.25.6.zip

Horse archery. Slow motion scenes included

@Sevda @thephilosopher many thanks for reporting. Bug is now fixed; the updated version v-0.25.3 of the mod is now attached to the initial post of this thread. If you have the older version v-0.25.2 installed no problem: just open the mod options menu once and everything will work.

Sevda's issue is the same issue I had at first. I solved it by clicking "Rebuild List," and then all the scores populated.

If someone will play only 1v1 vs much weaker players, the player can get easily a very high "rating". So you can think that its rather like a win rate than like a rating. Just saying

Trinketos' Pre colonial mod.

The Forgotten Temple. For 0A.D A26.

Temple(wonder) for pre-colonial mod. Jungle temple map by me.

Derphammer.

For me this comes back to the problem that it's hard to define what 'balancing' is and that there is no definite feature/ gameplay-design plan. Everyone comes in with different ideas of how they would want the game to look and play like and no consensus in any form is ever reached. So is this a discussion about e.g. skirmishers need -1 hack or about hard vs soft counter or about how different civs should play and how the grand gameplay works? Without a having a defined goal of what the balancing discussion should lead to, it's hard to discuss it.