Jump to content

elexis

WFG Retired
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    3.644

  • Joined

  • Days Won

    59

 Content Type 

Posts posted by elexis

  3. Application "Multiplayer Lobby Moderator".

    in Applications and Contributions

    Posted

    First and foremost, thank you for your application.

    I agree with Hannibal that Wildfire Games might utilize a new moderator, depending on their qualities.

    The main question an organization should ask applicants for a position in the organization: Why are you a good choice for this position? What is your motivation and qualification to receive a moderator status? What distinguishes you from other candidates?

    Secondly: What are the tasks of a moderator that you would like to fulfil, how do you intend to perform them, and which of the tasks of a moderator would you prefer to leave to the other moderators or admins?

    Some answers are contained in the previous responses, including your availability and the motivation to help people solve problems. But perhaps you can answer a bit more specifically to these questions.

    I would like to add that the application and these questions can help to decide, but should not be used as the only basis for deciding.

    • Like 2

  5. Technology Tree [Ready to use]

    in Game Modification

    Posted

    I didn't mean to add it to the structree window itself, but to the dialog that opens after clicking on a tech. The new icons would then again be buttons to show information about these techs.

    The other information that is shown on the screenshot is a comparison between two techs, that doesn't fit into the existing dialogs. But is that important to compare these two techs on a single screen? (If we add a new screen, why only these two and not possibly more).

    Again, I didn't discover or comprehend all use cases, but the icons in the middle look like something that the template info dialog would benefit from.

    19 hours ago, Angen said:

     

    tech1.thumb.png.941da21422360f42489555916771bf5f.pngtech2.thumb.png.9e583dbe3fb32479c56f8e1687318549.png

     

  7. Technology Tree [Ready to use]

    in Game Modification

    Posted

    What is the use case of the dialog that the other dialogs don't serve yet? It's that the dependent technologies and units are displayed here but not in the structree? Perhaps the existing dialog could be extended, so that one doesn't have two dialogs with one feature each per entity/tech, but one dialog covering all the information? There was this new dialog in a23, perhaps the dependent units and techs could be shown there? Then the building selection wouldn't be a duplicate feature, one wouldn't have to switch between the dialogs when wanting the other piece of information on the building/tech, and the information that the structree has that this dialog doesn't have can be used without replicating it. But I don't know if there are more use cases that require this to be a separate dialog, or an independent dialog.

    On dialog design in general, ideally unused GUI space is a bit ugly. I see the window is so large becaues the structree uses that size, but that one also uses it. One can fill the unused space with decoratives sometimes, or rearrange somehow. It's problematic for the structree-type dialogs because the content size can vary a lot depending on the selection. For that purpose there ought to be scrolling. For the proposed dialog, one can probably reduce the width regardless of selection.

    • Like 2

  9. Stacked Unit training

    in Help & Feedback

    Posted

    I would guess that that the user config for the batchtrain count is not a number and thus defaults to 1. Or the setting was set to 1 or less. Try changing the one number that actually does set the "batchtrain modifier" or however it was called. The other settings should be irrelevant.

  16. There's a limit to things

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    23 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

    The message was loud and clear. Insulting Africans for soulless satan monkeys is fine. Insulting non-Africans is not. THAT'S my problem... 

    As far as I understand, the one moderator doesn't care whether non-africans are being called soulless monkeys either. And the other moderator seems to have jumped in after a certain amount of BS had been exceeded, not because of the specific content. But I haven't been there and precisely for that reason that I have better things to do than trying to get 120 random people in a room to become happy with each other.

    20 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

    Where I'm from, Hate Speech and Defamation are criminal offenses... 

    There's a difference between defamation and hatespeech. The latter is often defined to be anything that makes anyone subjectively feel uncomfortable and thus something we must strongly oppose if we believe in free speech. Someone could say your message offends me personally, whatever it is, so you should go to jail. Calling for violence and defamation is more specific and also a criminal offence in countries where free speech is in the constituion.

    29 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

     This is not an edge case, and as I said earlier, I feel embarrassed and disappointed that this needs to be pointed out.

    You are right, it's not an edge case. With 100k of lobby accounts and 10k of them being used every month, someone is toxic on the lobby chat every day.

    31 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

    I don't care if moderators receive flack for banning people simply because they wanted to play a multiplayer game with some friends on the same network and I don't care if moderators receive flack for banning or muting people for mild swearwords.

    Point was that it's impossible as a moderator to not getting shat at on a daily basis for moderating too few or too much and that this just results in moderators being even less willing to donate their time.

    I think just because a moderator did not chose to policy speech, doesn't mean that he does condone that speech. Sometimes I wonder if it wouldn't be better to have a platform where there is no authority, so that toxic messages are only attributed to the person who posts them, not to the person who didn't policy them, i.e. a more peer-to-peer platform, or just removing the chat feature from the lobby altogether. At least I didn't donate my time to such bullshit anymore. As a moderator I have received enough of such accusations to stop joining this room. And no, I'm not being convinced to give other people moderator access who promise to ban a lot more violently for their personal definition of hate speech. It often ends up in being the same kind of offensive behavior but under opposite sign, and will lead so just the same accusations. When I think back about the people who have offered themselves as a moderator and how they behaved in chat later, I'm glad they didn't get moderator access.

    So yes, I agree that a mute would have been appropriate in this situation, but in general, Wildfire Games should enable players to play, but shoul avoid putting themselves in a situation where they are responsible to make 100k players accept each other.

    • Thanks 1

  17. There's a limit to things

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    7 hours ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

    there need to be clear guidelines

    7 hours ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

    following protocol

    Terms_of_Use.txt

    Quote

    Document Date: 2018-10-13

    By using the 0 A.D. Multiplayer Lobby, you agree to:

    1. Only create one account per person on the service unless authorized by Wildfire Games.
    2. Not impersonate other users of the service and only use your registered username in multiplayer matches.
    3. Not post profanity, pejorative terms or pornographic content.
    4. Not harass, harm, intimidate, discriminate, threaten, defame, cause damage to others or purposefully demean the worth of others using this service.
    5. Not violate the privacy of others by disclosing personally identifiable information (for example real name, location, ID) or private details (for example social media or messenger account names) of others without their consent.
    6. Not incite violence or promote illegal acts.
    7. Not attempt to artificially adjust any user of the service's rating or any of the statistics which impact it. (Examples of this are, but are not limited to: cheating in ranked games, reverse engineering the service, and taking advantage of other users of the service.)
    8. Not undermine the intended gameplay or purposefully gain unfair advantages in multiplayer matches (for example cheating, using exploits or bugs).
    9. Not spam the service and not post large amounts of repetitive or unwanted messages.
    10. Not use the service to promote specific goods, services, or products unless authorized by Wildfire Games.
     
    If a moderator deems your behavior to be inconsistent with these terms, your account may be restricted, suspended or terminated.

    From what I gather, it was your guys first witnessing of pesems noisefloor. There are few others who seem to have been born with some essentials missing. The first important thing to me is that everyone knows who is the author of foul messages and that they have the freedom to avoid that individual without having to leave the lobby. If people chat that on their own server, others know that's the badpeoples corner and that they won't join that area anymore. If such messages are posted in the lobby chat, especially if they are posted over large periods of time, the users have no choice but to have to read that crap, and thus I would agree that a mute or temporary ban is appropriate. It is very stressful as a moderator to face poisonous people on a daily basis and get attacked for banning them and not banning them at the same time. No matter what you do, you do it wrong, and whatever the bad people do is now attributed to the moderators. So lets remind ourselves that we can be happy to have any moderators and online multiplayer at all, it's not to be taken for granted.

  18. Flora Aura

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted

    There are thousands of trees and auras have bad performance (depending on the type of aura. In some cases it can take several seconds to compute). So if anything, it would have to be select few entities (probably the invisible placeholders), as wow and nescio proposed above.

    From a coding perspective, I'm not sure if auras are the right way to go about this. A tile-based mechanism might be a considerable alternative. That would allow for example rectangular shaped shallows / river crowssings to be covered precisely. Or a long road without placing many small auras.

    That is about movement speed modifiers. But why would a nearby tree change a units attack stats or defense stats? Ambush? Well I guess it's not forbidden to think about that, but it sounds like it could have weird consequences (all players running into the forest to fight?).  (We have trac tickets on Ambush and environmental slowdown, but that probably won't help, and who knows what the design document intended)

    (Also it already is slower to walk through a forest, since the units bump into the trees and each other. But perhaps it's not as significant as desirable.)

    • Like 1

  19. Community maps mod idea

    in Scenario Design/Map making

    Posted

    18 minutes ago, nani said:

    Your new map would make a great addition pity we only have  images of it :(

    I never wrote the trigger scripts though, and I wanted those decal paths, which require a new paradigm to store information sub-tilesize level efficiently, and some storytelling elements.  Maybe some day.

    I remember another map that you could put into the mappack D1497. It's an overhaul of Alpine Valleys. (Problem is only that I'm a fan of the labyrinth and that overhaul seems to remove that from what I see on the screenshots.)

    In general it would be great if users could upload maps (and replays, D1723) more easily, so that user-generated 0ad content distribution is less bottlenecked.

  20. Dancing

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted

    16 minutes ago, Feldfeld said:

    then I move it out while changing its directions sometimes to avoid arrow, the cav receives less damage than it should, then would it be considered dancing ?

    Dancing means moving without intending to move a unit away, but only to dodge bullets. In your example you actually move the unit elsewhere.

    17 minutes ago, Feldfeld said:

    i didn't enable formation so i have some units more advanced than others and i want to place them back in the line.

    Meh, switching formations back and forth is another exploitable thing. In that case the units even receive run speed. That's not the dancing we're talking about, dancing is only moving backwards and forth to dodge bullets with either many move commands or patrol command. Like actual dancing where you're not getting into formation with others or transporting units (ministry of silly walks doesn't count as dancing because it's moving units).

    20 minutes ago, Feldfeld said:

    In practice, i'm pretty sure i had many games with Valihrant where there was tacital agreement not to dance, but since limit is not clear and some actions can be interpretted as dancing then, well in the end we both dance because no choice.

    The question is whether one of you wants to report that as a cheat, or as as unintentional exploit that still cost you the score. (If you're playing top 5, you want the game result to be acurate). I guess the burden of proof is on the reporter to show that a specifc series of moves has resulted in the loss of the game. It's easy to show for most dancers and formation wigglers.

    24 minutes ago, Feldfeld said:

    I mean, the host does what he wants anyway of course, but i can expect heads on fire and facepalms 

    That's always the case with enforcing custom terms of use. Where is the limit to jokes on the chat if the host says he will ban if players are making jokes he doesn't like? Mostly players need to organize and decide for themselves if it doesn't affect the WFG score database or WFG lobby chat. They should join the host they trust or host themselves and become a source of player trust.

    30 minutes ago, Feldfeld said:

    i don't dance (or "too much") until ennemy does it

    That's even the more messed up part than just the invulnerable units. It forces everyone to play with the silly exploit thing (or to train nothing but the most recent OP unit).

    31 minutes ago, Feldfeld said:

    maybe how a hit is determined (make unit "hitbox" larger and perhaps compensate with lower accuracy for units ? perhaps projectiles faster as well ?).

    I mostly think about the pile of 100 arrows in one place left and 100 arrows right of the unit. That inherently seems wrong. Perhaps one can reformulate the trajectory somehow. If we would actually look at the code, we wouldn't have to guess. It should be in Attack.js. But it's hard if not impossible to change it without affecting the balancing.

  22. Community maps mod idea

    in Scenario Design/Map making

    Posted

    1 hour ago, (-_-) said:

    plague_swamp_triggers.js 3.89 kB · 2 downloads

    Did you test the map in MP? g_InsectEntities sounds like it would trigger an OOS on rejoin, and should become a property of the Trigger prototype (thus serialized and deserialized).  I will try the map eventually. :gollum:

    29 minutes ago, nani said:

    problem would be security concerns and review time

    Mods for mod.io are only reviewed for security concerns, which is not much to review for maps, since they have very limited JS Interfaces. Simulation/AI/rmgen context doesn't have much access, GUI does have much, much, much, much, much more access.

    • Like 2

  23. Community maps mod idea

    in Scenario Design/Map making

    Posted

    On 11/25/2018 at 11:05 AM, stanislas69 said:

    https://github.com/0ADMods/maps_random_by_kali

    I recall that the "Ring" map looked quite interesting. It wasn't actively rejected, but it was just not continued. It looked a bit like the Gear map without water. I guess the radially symmetrical terrain is a bit odd.

    New maps are a good cause, I got so fed up playing the same 70 random maps again and again (many players only play one map, for years, 5 times per day, really weird). So thanks for that package.

    • Like 1
    • Haha 1

  25. State of the AI

    in General Discussion

    Posted · Edited by elexis
    s/extortion/coercion

    On 3/12/2019 at 3:45 AM, (-_-) said:

    Curious as to what exactly is planned for the AI at this point? Surely, you can’t just keep it unchanged forever.

    The question "what is planned for the AI at this point?" has many answers. Preconditions to a social commonground with the Fork guys is absence of name-calling,  belittling, accusations that we want to purposefully destroy the project, or even coercion with legal means. Anyones motivation here is 0 A.D., we don't have to like each other in order to work on the project, but we need to be constructive.

    The other answer to that question is that there is no special answer to the AI but the general coding principles apply. If someone changes a simulation component, they must make sure that they don't break something in the implications of the patch, and thus also check for the AI. There is currently no reason to drop Petra AI because it wasn't bugged further, and because the Fork Petra AI most likely is incompatible. If there is someone new who wants to continue working on Petra or create a new AI without hardcoded templates, they can do so just like they could do before. That reviews are a problem is not new, but new developers who show that they actually know better than the current developers typically receive commit access.

    • Like 2
×
×
  • Create New...