Leaderboard

That's what https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/issues/7166 would solve. In my opinion cheating is degrading the user experience way more than giving hosts the option to disable unsigned mods. We're not talking about a single mod here. Such a change would prevent all unreviewed and unsigned mods to be used, if the host of a game decides so. There are for examples instructions on the internet to create mods just meant for blatant cheating. The first post in this thread proves the opposite. You can only enforce something you know about and the use of certain mods is not known to other players.

Don't be confused because some consider it not cheating. It is very clear cheating. It disables game penalties: In game auto-batching gets disabled when the player don't have the resources. It's not on pause (like proGUI) because the programmers lack the capability to program it otherwise, it is a draw back to use this automated way. Do that in the dedicated place, hand in the patches and wait for the next alpha. The topic here is cheating. You can discuss new features for future versions else where. You disable penalties for yourself while playing with players that have these enabled in their game. I had games recently, after the game I get mocked "lol, ffm only 60 kills". I check the replay and see the opponent was a proGUI user. Other games I get a clear win with a ally over decent players, check the replay and see my ally uses proGUI. Also I happen to play in rounds with known cheaters, because the host tolerates it and the better players are already there. The motivation for the cheaters I assume is because they can join rounds of better players and compete with them. The easiest way to identify cheating with proGUI is the quickstart part. It sends 7 commands in one turn, at about turn 12. cmd 6 {"type":"set-rallypoint","entities":[400],"x":200.843017578125,"z":647.5227661132812,"data":{"command":"gather","resourceType":{"generic":"food","specific":"fruit"},"resourceTemplate":"gaia/fruit/berry_01","target":419},"queued":false} cmd 6 {"type":"unload-template","all":true,"template":"template_unit_support_female_citizen","owner":6,"garrisonHolders":[400]} cmd 6 {"type":"set-rallypoint","entities":[400],"x":208.0706787109375,"z":558.1127319335938,"data":{"command":"gather","resourceType":{"generic":"wood","specific":"tree"},"resourceTemplate":"gaia/tree/oak_hungarian","target":411},"queued":false} cmd 6 {"type":"unload-template","all":true,"template":"units/rome/infantry_swordsman_b","owner":6,"garrisonHolders":[400]} cmd 6 {"type":"unload-template","all":true,"template":"units/rome/infantry_javelineer_b","owner":6,"garrisonHolders":[400]} cmd 6 {"type":"set-rallypoint","entities":[400],"x":168.57574462890625,"z":588.1920776367188,"data":{"command":"gather","resourceType":{"generic":"food","specific":"meat"},"resourceTemplate":"gaia/fauna_chicken","target":425},"queued":false} cmd 6 {"type":"unload-template","all":true,"template":"units/rome/cavalry_spearman_b","owner":6,"garrisonHolders":[400]} A mod that warn users in game about a amount of commands that is beyond the best player (plus a threshold) could be a idea. But I don't know where to start with it at the moment. Hardening the game against abuse is one front to fight. But this is absolutely ridiculous to defend and pretend "is it really a cheat if a 1200 player don't win 10 out of 10 vs a 1800 elo player", "it's just a few commands at the start". It's another thing that the cheats are so easy available, widely used and pretended it wouldn't be a cheat.

Yeah, like decency and basic courtesy. Call me old and conservative.

This is my opinion, as well. I agree with this. I don't think that this would solve the problem. WFG isn't signing mods frequently enough to satisfy the userbase, and probably never will. Many users choose to use unsigned mods, even in ranked games. I guess that your proposal is an attempt to minimize the effort for attempting to solve the problem. I think that it would not actually solve the problem, though. I think that it would be better to put the effort in to adding a feature that shows all players the mods in use by all players in the match. It would also be useful to add a feature that allows the hoster to define two lists: a list of required mods, and a list of optional mods, and to enable a setting that blocks users from joining unless they have mods consistent with those lists. I think that this is the most that we can do to resolve this conflict short of using a kernel-level anti-cheat system.

All parties in the know = not cheating Using it secretly = cheating Is it that complicated?

Maybe should be an opt out option like ranked. This way you can still play with custom maps and whatnot should you want to.

That's a good answer. Seriously now, I don't understand why the players would cheat. It's like lying to themselves. There is no honor. They are more dependent on the pleasure of winning than on having fun and being honest with themselves.

Works. Thank you!

I like the Carthage one too. The basic outlines we made I think still work for that, and it fits our criteria. With the Thrace colonies, I was just trying to find somewhere with a fairly well known civilization that would fit, I'm happy we found something better.

This means that autociv doesn't appear in mod checks. And with the new rule about signing mods we can no longer do that since it touches the simulation codes https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/wiki/Mod_Verification_Processee Just like ProGUI, users will want to keep the mod hidden because an incorrect order such as users having community mod enabled first and autociv second while others have autociv first will cause players to not be able to join games with each others.

I don't do MP and I don't use any mods. Of course anyone can play the game how they like, but when playing against others I consider it poor sportsmanship if they don't make their use of mods transparent and consider anything but purely GUI cheating. I think ProGUI does this sending off units in three directions simultaneously and automating the batches; if the other players try to hide the use of that mod it's cheating. Don't know if you have any other recourse than just not playing with them anymore.

A single AI is usually not a challenge, so you'd need to play against a team. Or maybe there is some mod somewhere with higher AI difficulty.

Yea those things I talked about as far as I know are just in progui (quickstart and autotrainer), which is what the calamity is about. The autociv hotkeys still require the player to execute every action. I think for adding things from autociv we probably want to focus on things that provide a useful quality of life enhancement but also avoiding anything that accomplishes multiple tasks in one action (macros).

It would be interesting to have some bronze age cultures from Europe. Although a lot of it would require speculation due to the lack of written sources. Since there are no known figures from those cultures, the heroes (if they have them at all) would have to be based on generic archetypes (high priest, king, great warrior...).

I'm not sure you have access to user mods right now (I suppose guest have access to the host's mods though). My issue with just listing mods is you are basically just listing names. So I can make an autociv named mod with the progui features and it will go under the radar. The good thing with Dunedan's approach is that one can rely on zip signatures which are harder to craft. With mod names, you mod can be a zip, a list of files in a folder, with or without mod.json and it's gonna be pretty hard to compare them between users. And if you can't compare them, you're just in a slightly better place than right now, but you have almost no extra guarantee. Agreed on the signing times @Itms and I can take a while. And as mentioned on the autociv thread, not all mods are eligible. I'd be against porting all of them to the main game, but I think some features in autociv are great, like the hotkeys. Our hotkey situation is bare, to say the least.

The option to allow or disallow unsigned mods on the host side seems like a good idea. It can allow more casual hosts that don't feel strongly about the use of this mod to let players use it, and allows hosts that want a level playing field to disallow this mod. Secondly, the argument that "there are other cheats, therefore a cheat mod isn't bad" is not valid. From what I've seen from the gaming industry as a whole, anti-cheat is as much about making it harder to cheat vs. actually stopping cheating. Lastly, just because this cheat mod improves the experience for a select few players, doesn't mean it's features should be added to the game as a means to level the playing field. We shouldn't completely rework the GUI and gameplay style of 0ad just because a select few players want high-level automation.

As Stan said, the new rules for mod.io uploads don't allow mods with the compatibility flag off and that change the simulation folder (even if they preserve gameplay simulation untouched).

You know, we could just put a kernel level anticheat... Maybe that'd help...

I researched for more ideas, but didn't find anything promising. My pick remains Carthago Nova. It's as good of an option as we're gonna find in my opinion. What do you all think? @ShadowOfHassen My problem with Athenian colonies in Thrace is that we lack the Thracians as a civilization in the vanilla game. And, in the grand scope, most of those colonies were rather insignificant.

So you want some new checksums on each mod to be performed upon login or something? I've just tested and modified signed incompatible mods are joinable by players with the original one as I was expecting. So I don't understand what you mean, I'm probably missing something. Wanting the game to introduce a features that clearly will downgrade user experience, just to attempt to enforce a ban on a single mod is totally out of measure, add to it that (what I would consider) the ultimate cheat is available from command prompt; some hacks a widely spread, and now it's just ridiculous, yes. Sorry if that sounds like mocking but clearly I can't even have a clue of wtf is that hysteria about progui. Players that already can't bear such unfair advantage provided by the mod are already successful in enforcing players not to use them in there host....

I created an issue to add an option to only allow signed mods: https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/issues/7166

Sorry for the late answer, but, yes, that is possible. Look for the "typeCountsByClass" in the playerstates (part of the simulation state). It stores how many units of each template a player currently controls.

@RangerK The idea that the proGUI smart train offers no advantage over the original vanilla autoqueue is false. The vanilla production system stops when there are no resources available. The proGUI system automatically adjusts production based on available resources and houses. And it does this instantly while you can be busy in battle or whatever else. You don't even have to think about batch size based on barracks. The system does everything on its own. You set the ratio you want in your army (ranged/melee, etc.) and the mod produces on its own. You can even set an amount of resources you don't want to be spend. It's fantastic. You only have to worry about houses. If you run out of available houses, as soon as you build a new one the system automatically starts producing units. And calculate the batch size to produce per barrack. Instantly. It gives you freedom to do other tasks without worrying about production in a much more efficient way than the original system. It is not, by any means, a simple aesthetic/GUI improvement. We can argue whether this is cheating or not, whether vanilla gameplay should be like this, whether it is more or less fun, or fair. I consider many of the mod's contributions very valuable but to say that it offers no advantages is ridiculous. Just try it by yourself and you will see.

It isn't? Undisplayed mods wouldn't work that way either, unless the player uses a recompiled version of 0ad, which is a much higher hurdle than just installing a mod. So you're arguing that preventing some cheats is pointless, because there are still others? In my opinion the best way to have an even playing field is to contribute useful features directly to 0ad. That way all players have access to them. Also splitting "harmless" features and features which might be considered cheating into separate mods would also solve this issue.

@RangerK Name and shame. Also, you are describing ProGui. I (and many others) consider it cheating. I (and many others) do not allow it in my (their) hosted games. So if you see it ever occurring in any of my hosts feel free to let me know and I will fix it. This is seriously concerning. Mods are supposed to go through the review process in order to go through a security screening. Creating a mod and advertising it on Wildfire's servers is a workaround to these security procedures.

Both are in the mod

Unless they are trolls messing up other people's lives, but that is so pointless, senseless. It's like stealing unnecessarily. There is a psychology of pleasure in winning by cheating. https://www.webmd.com/balance/ss/slideshow-competition-win#:~:text=Your desire to win could,reward area of your brain. https://www.madmonq.gg/dopamine-control-for-gamers/

Isn't sportsmanship a old-fashioned thing?

What you have identified as a cheat in the above is consistent with proGUI. The version of proGUI that you see in the mod downloader is required to have compatibility checks on, so all players must have the mod. This was required for the mod to be signed and allowed on mod.io AFAIK. The individual behind proGUI has a github where you can get the version that has these checks turned off. This is the version that you see individuals using when they are playing against players that don't have the mod.

Sounds coherent. Sounds good to me.

Northern Germany and Poland, facing the Baltic.

Monkodonja hillfort, bronze age https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkodonja

New random map created by me and @Jammyjamjamman, adapted from the Corinthian Isthmus 2v2 skirmish map. Available in v0.25.7 of CM2. Bases start with 1000 stone and 1000 metal next to their CC instead of 5000/5000. Mines are placed randomly but so far, they seem to be available very close to the territory borders. I'll make changes if necessary.

I wonder if you'd want to figure out a way to use the construction obstructors in your map script. These objects prevent construction of buildings, but allow passage of units.

Now for something different: Tartarus... My imagination starts to roll about maybe having a secret mythologically-based campaign after you complete all of the historical campaigns (Punic Wars, Persian Wars, Alexander's Anabasis, et al.)

Yeah, I definitely agree. After spending several hours trying, we haven't worked out how to make the roads go around hills, mountains, and shoreline yet. Thanks. And actually, as shown in the screenshot, the gap between players' bases changes based on the number of players and size of the map. This is 2v2 on a Medium map.

Arctic, Sahara, and Savanna (because and on-accounta it's a random map)

I narrowed the roads a bit, and now some large mines are placed near the territory border of each player on maps greater than or equal to Medium size. These changes will be included in the next release. P.S. The different styling of the road in this screenshot doesn't have to do with any other change except for this is the temperate biome and the other screenie was the autumn.

Can you also please upload the new version to mod.io (https://mod.io/g/0ad/m/autociv), so it's available directly in game?