Feldfeld

I think it could help a lot if one, or multiple, of these players could bisect to try to pinpoint how the issue got introduced. I imagine it appeared in a very subtle way.

Loading replays shouldn't trigger the bug.

Need to start the game I believe

I have received reports of Feldmap generating maps with the same seed. I also observed the issue myself. I investigated it, and I believe this is a bug of A27, unrelated with feldmap. I wrote a report here https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/issues/7632 If you have this issue, as a temporary fix, it should be enough to delete your `matchsettings.mp.json`. See here to find where this file is located: https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/wiki/GameDataPaths and follow "For user config and logs" (example: ~/.config/0ad/config) If you see lyx in the lobby, please tell him that he can also fix his issue (Survival of the Fittest script in unrelated maps) by deleting his `matchsettings.mp.json`. The problem will appear again after starting a multiplayer saved game as a host. So after doing that, you should delete that file again. I may eventually write a (potentially hacky) fix, in a separate mod, but no guarrantee.

There are instructions here https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/wiki/Atlas_Manual_Map_Preview

Uh yeah you're right. It's just not intuitive that P0 and P1 both refer to the same worker in the explanation.

Looks cool! If I find time, I could give it a shot.

Han farming techs have been adjusted https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/commit/5dcef8c17a11c52817bbfb44b569cc8d29adde4a If P0 is the productivity of the first worker, then Pn would be the productivity of the (n+1)th worker I think. AI still has ways to go

Feldmap is updated to A27 and is now available for download in mod.io! (version 2.0.1). Once again, I invite players to try out rarely played biomes since they are balanced! Minor changes: - Straggler berry tree balance - Better animal variety on some biomes, compared to A26 - Make the "Player Placement" gamesetup settings visible in the "game description" panel, and in the Objectives tab in game, together with the other relevant settings. Major change (EXPERIMENTAL!): Added long range mineral (Stone and Metal) balancing. The quantity of mineral in areas near a player is very variable, but is balanced in the end. There can be variety in the types of mineral groups: a player may be given a 5000 mine while another gets multiple small ones. It is long range balancing, but not infinite: there are neutral areas where stone or metal is up for grabs. In vanilla Mainland, to partially compensate for the lack of mineral balance, mineral mines are very spread out. There are constraints so that mines don't get placed too close to each other, reducing the probability of a large imbalance. But this also made the map more plain as a result. Since mineral balance is added in Mainland Balanced, I also reduced the possible distance between mines. So it makes it possible to have areas very rich in metal, and other not at all. This can make interesting game configurations. Also, the long range balancing code has been made generic and very easy to include in other maps, so down the line I intend add resource balancing to other maps. Food balancing could be also integrated in that framework, but it's not there yet. Known problem: Right now, it clearly favours small mines against large ones. This can make some ugly maps. And sometimes it gives too many mines overall. I plan to fix that eventually. But this means that I may give up the "variety of group size between player" feature, especially if I want to merge resource balancing into the next release.

Well, while taking fewer diminishing returns is an advantage, it's dissociated from farming tech research time. I think they should be harmonized. And this is clearly an oversight as demonstrated by OP. These reports should always be encouraged regardless of the decision we take from it. By the way, in A26 release, the Han farming technologies had no effect at all, so after all it's still an improvement

I don't think counters should be changed. My proposition would be to nerf melee champ cav HP to 250. With new player placement option, in many situations it will be possible to go for champions without temporarily putting an ally in a bad spot. I'm confident there will be many cases where they are good to make.

If there's no tip for batch training, that one is quite important, for all players.

There can also be the concept of progressive resource cost. The cost of the next building depends on the number of buildings currently in place, it augments with that number. That concept is used in Age of Mythology Egyptian monument to gods, it is also used in Age of Empires Online if my memory is correct. This allows for a bonus from the early game that can scale properly in the late game. The Persian ice house could benefit from this as right now it doesn't feel it has a good place in gameplay. But a distance restriction could also work.

Very good idea. I've tried without success to promote other maps or biomes. The culture needs to change but some maps could take some improvement too. I invite you to try to play svn/dev version on the busiest days. Playtesting could be very helpful for the release. But there won't be autociv I think.

Yes I plan to get active again once A27 releases.

I have been lurking the forum for a very long time, and I found it very inorganic how many new accounts, all seemingly well acquainted with the multiplayer "pro" community (who knows who they actually are?) generate discussions about cheats, the only effect of leaving a very bad impression about the project to any other forum lurker, any potential new people to the project. I think this is a very bad thing and it has to stop. I also saw for myself the public disclosure of cheats. I looked a little bit at these, and found the usual suspects, but also a fairly novel cheat method baked in which should be, in my opinion, very easy to detect and prove from replay files. Since @ffm2 has done work about this, I will contact him to see if he can find usages in replays. This could potentially give answers about which lobby accounts Yekaterina has been using, or simply reveal which player would not hesitate using hidden cheats.

I like these ideas, if I find the time maybe I'll make a mod for that. This can open the way for paired (maybe exclusive) technologies, for example whether compensating for low fertility or optimizing high fertility

Indeed 0 A.D. doesn't split computation between different computers, but it does have multiple agents all in relation to each other and providing their own input. I'm not sure if it qualifies as distributed system. If I go by the Wikipedia page they even consider MMOs as distributed despite that they use dedicated servers and many of them are probably not much more technically complex than many games including the already mentioned Valorant. 0 A.D. is peer-to-peer with one peer taking the role of the host. If I go by the wikipedia page I could see an argument for it being the simplest case of a distributed system. As of right now, if any player other than the host drops, he can rejoin and the game can resume. If the host drops, the game is lost. If there was the added functionality that in case the host drops then the remaining players decide on a new host, then it would make a cool distributed system imo, but well it's too complex compared to the alternative of having a reliable dedicated server. Due to being peer-to-peer, 0 A.D. faces the NAT traversal problem. STUN was used for UDP hole punching to solve it in a22 (I found this patch https://code.wildfiregames.com/D364). Before that was the good old time of opening a UDP port. I personally implemented a simplified UDP hole punching algorithm as part of a free extension project in a distributed algorithms class. As for the simulation, the goal is to provide a smooth experience for every player, hopefully hiding issue related to connectivity. Indeed 0 A.D. is not doing that good. Let's compare approaches (to the best of my knowledge) in similar games: - 0 A.D.: the game advances as fast as the slowest computer, and bad ping of any player would slow the game for everyone. But the biggest problem is bad optimization which will be felt in late game, thus slowing the game, especially if a player is running a toaster. - AoE2: Like 0AD, it also runs with deterministic simulation I believe. With Voobly, it was similarly P2P with a peer taking the role of a host. However, if a player had bad ping with the host then only he was slowed and penalized. With DE there is a dedicated server, and a player is still penalized for having a bad connection. - Mario Kart 8 Deluxe: Also P2P with a peer taking the role of a host. It would be unplayable if you had to wait even a little to have the commands of other players, so the game runs with the other player position being only approximate, and synchronization is done as frequently as possible. Thus, unlike the above games, every player has a different state.

It was the same filename of that post where you reported that issue and couldn't get the seed so I thought you were still on that issue. And just now I noticed you posted an image and not an actual file. If you want a seed from a replay file it's at the start of the command.txt

From the description you gave of it the problem is probably https://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/6605 which is known and somewhat reproducible using extreme map settings. See also some discussions here https://code.wildfiregames.com/D5247

Is this Gitea instance suitable to host mods?

I believe you just have to check for name uniqueness. Both feldmap and badosu maps define their own balancer which they only use in their own new maps (thus unique). So the only way they would be incompatible is if some functions defined share the same name in both mods, then one would override the other which is bad. With a quick check it seems there is no shared name so they should be compatible but tell me if you see otherwise. A way to check for OOS if you are alone is that you can launch a game, generating the map, then exit, change the mod order, and open the replay to that game. If it is incompatible you should see OOS there.

When that change was introduced, it was argued that it wouldn't decrease the performance, and that it would possibly even increase it (maybe even with benchmarks to confirm). Keep in mind that not everything is recalculated every turn. I think calculations use the elapsed time to decide if they trigger, or something like that. So I believe the more expensive calculations do not trigger more often even with a lower turn time. Personally I recall the lag issue was still very important even in a23 and below. But if you feel there is a change, there are so many other things that can also explain it: - Player level get stronger -> fully boomed faster -> huge fights happen sooner and more frequently -> you feel the lag - Economy upgrades are more effective -> all same as above AND you can afford to leave fewer units at home when fully boomed (so more in the expensive fight) - Meta: rush less viable -> people don't do it -> instead of having maybe 6 players simultaneously fully boomed, you have all eight which reach the same situation at almost the same timestamp, and every fight will happen simultaneously.

Also valid as a gameplay argument. I'd like my fortress to damage multiple units at a time and I even find it strange some people don't want that. That may be possible in theory but in practice I didn't really feel that much. In AoE2 even towers can kill multiple units at a time. That could be an interesting thing, but if every arrow goes for that unit then the player probably won't have the time to react before the unit dies. Also, having distinguishable arrow volleys would help with that (not saying that's not the case right now, I didn't play recently enough to remember)

Imo that would be an improvement but I still also would like to see deviation with arrows being able to hurt a different unit than the target, not sure if that's possible without hurting performance