Leaderboard

I'm creating this topic because I'd like to know if implementing a rating system for TG in the game is something that's being considered. I believe this has been discussed for quite some time now. However, I strongly believe that even an imperfect system could bring many interesting improvements to the game. First and foremost, it would make the TG easier to balance, which, in my opinion, is crucial for an enjoyable gaming experience. Additionally, it would discourage players from not taking a game seriously and encourage them to fight until the last man. Moreover, since most top players don't frequently play 1v1 matches, their ratings remain relatively stagnant, which doesn't accurately reflect their current skill level. Some players have been rated over 1700+ since the early stages of the game but aren't at that level anymore, while others are stuck at 1300 but are actually worth 1800+. Implementing a rating system could provide a more accurate ranking of players. I propose using a similar formula for 1v1 matches, where the average rating of each team is considered. In this system, every player would gain or lose the same number of points, regardless of their current rating. What are your thoughts on this? Do you think it would be challenging to implement this in the lobby for the next alpha? Thank you.

The big economic problem of 0a.d is that you can obtain thousands of resources without having expand your city. You can literally reach 300 pop with all the upgrades without needing to expand a single inch. A simple solution without the need for new developments would be to change the standard cost of units, add metal to all infantry and cavalry units, except slinger which already has its stone cost. It would also be necessary to reduce the game's initial mines to perhaps 1000 resources for metal and stone. I think that this way the player really needs to expand his territory and look for new game alternatives. Of course, this is just a vague idea, it would need to be worked on better.

@alre i believe @Dunedan is responsible for the lobby bots, included the rating bots. I looked at the code and it should not be so hard to implement.

https://topostext.org/work/194#Mar.25.7

Excuse me, could someone (@Genava55 @Ultimate Aurelian) recommend a historian who has described in detail how the Cimbians were armed (helmet, shields,etc) in the Cimbrian War? maybe Plutarch or someone else.

I'm convinced that a better system would not prevent discussions at all. Also I think that a TG rating system would be relatively easy to implement and potentially very useful. Actually, 1v1 rating can be improved as well at little cost. What I don't know is who and how is managing the rating bot. what would it take to have a pr accepted?

https://www.worldhistory.org/Cernunnos/ Johnny Shumate

it works out very well for persians. Look how the order is the same, so each upgrade is beneath the unit.