Leaderboard

hi there is something wrong in 0ad. idk whether its a bug or just a big weak spot? when units are fighting they will follow passive units (like passive hero) and the opponent units will kill them easily. or a player move a small part of his army then opponent units will follow them while the rest units will destroy them. players like vinme and jc abuse these weak spots and call it micro. while its not micro its just 0ad stupidity. to remove this weak spots i have 2 suggestions 1- remove passive mod from heroes (or even soldiors ). why heroes and soldiors should be passive? are they coward? 2- limit number units who follow the opponent units. or force units to attack nearby units.

I would argue that the stereotype is just in your head, since there are no children in that image, also, chances are the sign and the parking where next to a supermarket or a mall, hence the shopping cart.

Well for A25 you have a M1 version. Another one will be provided for A26

https://play0ad.com/alpha-26-is-near/

There is a ticket for it at https://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/5423, we should definitely have this eventually. Hopefully for A27.

The process is currently like this: NetClient sends a CChatMessage to the NetServer. NetServer broadcasts the CChatMessage to every connected NetClient. What you would need to do is add another message type CNetMuted, handle it and keep track in NetServer. An intermediate step would then come in between the two above steps where you would just drop all CChatMessage from muted NetClients. Its possible to translate the current kick/ban code to mute pretty straightforwardly as it should behave identically apart from what message types are ignored. Yes, your research is accurate. It cannot be done just by JS, needs some engine network changes.

I could argue further with you, but shows me it's not worth it.

This used to happen previously too. But it was a mystery as to how to reproduce it effectively. A mismatch between actual territory boundaries and drawn boundaries. I think there is a ticket for it, will have to search it up.

Sorry for the confusion @chrstgtr and @LetswaveaBook. I added quotations around "unfair" on that post because I was acknowledging that my previous idea about attack upgrades being unfair was wrong. I hope that makes sense for everybody.

Talk about an impossible task XD. I think what we can conclude is that people are happy to have more content in general. To me, a more diverse tech tree seemed like a certain way to offer content in the form of gameplay options and playstyles.

Emperior, your post was primarily about lobby moderation, and it was off-topic in this thread. I requested that it be moved, along with the replies about lobby moderation, to the Lobby Help and Moderation thread. It's not "no reason". I think there's been a miscommunication or assumptions made. I haven't been here since 2017. I only started participating in 2021, and improvements to lobby moderation are happening slowly. Please be supportive instead of destructive. Yes, it's frustrating that things are slow. But, why be destructive and punitive at the exact time that things are improving? I'm on your side about the need to improve lobby moderation. Let's talk in a 0ad game or in IRC to correct the miscommunication.

Guess what? The players should also be considered responsible for enforcing the rules. If they don't approve of certain conduct then they should be taking action in order to prevent that conduct. It starts with their own behavior. Two wrongs don't make a right. Players should not try to rationalize that their own disruptive behavior is okay because other regular players have certain disruptive behavior as well. Players, if you don't approve then punish the other players in a constructive way. Refuse to join their games unless they correct their behavior. Join hosts who have rules for their games. Apply rules to the games that you host. There are only a handful of hosters who have good connections, fast computers, correct port forwarding and correctly functioning firewalls. As a result, these hosters tend to be the most popular team game hosters. They could be considered "key terrain" for applying rules. But, if the disruptive players choose not to cooperate then they'll look for ways around the rules. The strategy should be prepared for this, and ideally split the non-disruptive "pro" players from the hardcore-stubborn-disruptive "pro" players. The hardcore disruptive players will just host their own games and step on each others' toes. Fine, let them do that, but don't step on the toes of players who want to get along and support everyone's fun. And, someday, the stubborn ones might choose to follow the rules in order to participate in some fun gameplay for everyone.

As far as the particular list of rules to choose, I think it is good to start with a short list considering your goal of encouraging the "pro" players to be on board with following the rules and helping everyone have a good experience in the games that you host. But, if you want suggestions about what rules to include, take a look at what the professionals are doing. That's what I did when I chose the list of rules for the games that I host. I don't remember exactly where I found guidance on writing a code of conduct for gaming, but I think that AoE IV and my list of rules have some common source material, since our rules seem quite similar and were written within a few months of each other. AoE's rules seem to have been posted first, but I'm fairly sure that I used more generic guidance material. Blizzard's in-game code of conduct Age of Empires IV code of conduct Squad code of conduct

Again, and again I see a post where the task is given to the hosts with little power. Yes, there are known players who are extremely toxic. I assume that you're referring to their conduct in-game as well as in the lobby. Since this thread is about in-game only I'll refer to that aspect only. The comments about lobby moderation were moved to the thread titled Lobby Help and Moderation, so the discussion about lobby rules can be continued on-topic there. "The services hosted by the players are moderated by those players. That is to say, each host moderates their own match." Hosters have kick and ban capability, so there's not "little power" that they have. But, many hosters ignore this power and don't take action. That is the real problem. So I applaud maxticatrix for implementing rules for his games. This is exactly what more hosters need to do.

Toxic comments are hard to police with a bot, as one could legitimately speak about certain subjects and if the bot is dumb it will give false positives. However, if it can maybe give accounts a toxicity score, perhaps hosts and other players can choose to play with that person or not. Or maybe that's a little Orwellian/Social Credit Score-ish.

@borg- provided a lot of differentiation for Persia, should be interesting to play.

Man punching baguette