Leaderboard

From 16 to 22 there was a game breaking unit that everyone agreed not to make (after a few month in the alpha). a23 felt "done". Now balancing started over again and when this model is "done" I fear a new model will be introduced (like historical) by new members that won't reach a mature state like a23. I also like the more diverse civs like the old ptols with free houses that took long to build (although they were always a bit OP).

Hi everyone, We are preparing the first "patch release" of 0 A.D., now that our workflow allows us to do that. We need your help testing it! What is a patch release? A patch release is a minor release of 0 A.D., bringing a few selected fixes from the development version into the latest release of the game. All fixes of the patch release are already present in the development version (the future Release 28). There are two important aspects to a patch release: Patch releases are OOS-compatible with major releases. If your friend has not heard about the patch release, or cannot install it for whatever reason, they should still be able to play multiplayer with you. This limits the kind of fixes we can include in a patch release. Patch releases are prepared on the side, and do not take precedence over our work towards the next major release. We prepare and provide patch releases as our resources allow. This limits the scale of the fixes we can include in a patch release. What is the current status of A27.1? We have setup all the infrastructure for generating patch releases, and a first testable version is ready for you. In A27.1 are included: a fix for the large performance issue observed by some players on older hardware several small performance improvements in the calculation of simulation hashes (related to multiplayer stuttering) fixed support of Windows 7 a fix for modifying your lobby password when you have an uppercase letter in your username a fix for the distorted 3D models with GPU Skinning fixes for crashes with Vulkan and/or with GPU Skinning a fix for changing player perspective in replays a fix for an out-of-memory crash in the JS engine when generating random maps a fix for the game crash on pressing Fn key a fix for a crash in Atlas when the map generation fails a fix for a memory leak in the renderer fixes for multiplayer port forwarding package fixes for Linux desktop environments various build fixes for Linux (some sent by package managers) A27.1 will not include: a fix for the Britons OOS on rejoin: unfortunately it would make A27.1 incompatible with A27 (against rule 1 above) any modification of simulation hashes: it could remove stuttering entirely, but it would make A27.1 incompatible with A27 (against rule 1 above) incremental simulation hashes: those improve stuttering as well, but are too complex to backport (against rule 2 above) How can I test it? You can download the release bundles of A27.1-RC0 at https://releases.wildfiregames.com/rc/ Please report below any crashes or new issues (that weren't already present in A27, unless they are listed as allegedly fixed above). Thanks for your help and support!

Now that there will be no more alpha releases, it's time to declare the best alpha release we had. The poll mentions some more significant alphas with major changes (but not truly old ones). You're free to vote in the comments for some other version. I personally love A27 as I've been playing it the most, but will vote A23 as the last "old-school" version of 0 A.D. It has a specific feel that some later alphas lost. Even the artwork is "more serious" to me, personally. Why I believe A23: Ken Wood stands out as the best release so far: 1) Much leaner on resources and disk size, 2) Artwork that stands out more, has that gritty feel that makes you want to stare at the icons, 3) Fortress produces "unique" champion units for most civs, while others have a special building for them, 4) Much tougher AI, that will end you if you're not careful. This is perhaps a consequence of it being able to produce champions earlier, without having to research a tech, 5) Named in honor of one of the founding members of the game, 6) Unit dialog screen introduced, allowing for more descriptive entities, etc.

Maybe we just need to lower the initial rating from 1200 to something like 800. Many new players aren't 1200, they are much weaker.

It's not impossibly hard but also not easy, because the way that the current lobby bot decides rating change is by waiting for the simultaneous resignation / victory reports from both players in the 1v1. Then it does a simple comparison and issues a rating change. In a TG, if the reports don't come in simultaneously, I'm not sure how the bot will handle it. This is not a client-side issue but a WFG lobby bot issue which I have no access to. I am not sure what kinds of information are stored for each account by the moderators / lobby servers. If it stores creation dates / total logins etc that would be great.

- it's okay that the system just takes the result into account, it's irrelevant how close it was. In many other games it's like this too. - it's ok that people can play rated matches against players who are much lower rated. if they lose, they lose a lot of points... - we need a rating system for team games too. Shouldn't be that hard....

Pretty sure there has been some debate on the current rating system, it has its flaw for sure. I dont have a full proof way to fix it. Nor do I know the coding needed/required. BUT i do think that you should be able to still "gain" points if you play a +100 or 200 player form your level and play really close. Also maybe you can only play rated games if you are within X of a player, try and prevent some of the fake ratings/people who are willing to play 100000 games and get 1 point each so they can get to 1600, 1700 etc. Any suggestions/thoughts/ideas on how to improve rating games for all?