Feldfeld

Considering that experienced players are more likely to share their replays, I suspect that starting at 1500 would actually look more like ingame ratings.

Yeah that's a bigger issue. A mitigation I see to avoid weird looking swings would be to recompute the whole thing at even slower intervals at which replays are scrapped. So there could be replays displayed not yet used in the rating calculation. So the problem would be "hidden" behind the big quantity of replays at each update. However, it happens that the multiplayer community plays much more TGs than they do 1v1s so not sure it would work well.

Imo, no. There are no draws in 0 A.D., and many replays with no winners would just be replays where there is actually a winner in the field but the game was exited without a result. Could be disconnection too, anyway a draw is a definitive result and it would not represent what happened in the match. It would be better to just ignore these games in the calculation. Could consider in the future having a tool analyzing the replay and deciding if there actually was a winner. I know lichess uses glicko and it is updated game by game. Here is what they say about it: https://lichess.org/faq#ratings https://lichess.org/page/rating-systems So the lichess boys are quite confident this is the better rating system. It's still difficult to compare as they also have a lot more games. As for what is written in the glicko2js github page, too bad they didn't get very specific about it, notably if the collection of games should involve the same players. Because when you think about it, provided the replay pallas scrapper runs at intervals, or if players post replays by dumps, then at each update you'd actually have a collection of replays to evaluate. Edit: nvm can't read. They did say 10-15 games per player. But it remains that lichess updates on the fly

No separation I'd say ideally, no

My idea would be for 1v1 only both ranked and unranked, team games would use the Local Ratings. As for the algorithm, I heard some form of Glicko was state of the art but I don't know more. Would need opinions of others to know if it even is a desired feature.

The idea I had in mind was to start an elo ranking from scratch and give it the data from the replays collected only.

Nice to see it up! Seems like the website enforces a password of length 9 despite claiming it should be 8 characters. On the Local Ratings section, the number of matches column doesn't seem consistent with other data. (also I'd argue that for 1v1 some form of elo system is always going to be better than local ratings)

Feldmap doesn't use compatibility check. Perhaps your issue is caused by another mod? Could you take a screenshot of your ingame mod selection screen?

I think it's bad for gameplay if palisades are built for the sole purpose of hindering pathfinding. To mitigate that, I could suggest to make it so when one section of palisade is broken then nearby sections are destroyed as well so it doesn't make a super tiny opening. Could consider making them weaker to pierce damage as well. On the other hand, they could be quicker to build so it doesn't take too much economy to build them early game.

Look at the bottom of the first post of the thread. You can also find the a25 version here btw.

If you want 0.2.0, look at the "a26 archive" spoiler in the first post of the thread. I think there's also a way to get it off mod.io

Not quite close for me, hotkeys are a very important part of any RTS game, the ProGUI features may not be something 0 A.D. goes for in the future. The only thing i have observed is a player that was on par with me without ProGUI beat me quite convincingly with the mod. I didn't play a lot this alpha so I didn't notice anything else, and it's not like i played a lot of games with that player either, but still what I observed was kinda overwhelming.

I agree with Mentula that ProGUI gives a serious advantage over a player of the same level, if used well. However he didn't say what is in my opinion the biggest reason why this is the case (at my level that is). The biggest advantage is in the case of continuous fights or harrassments, preferably in p1 or p2, where there are 3 or 4 production buildings per player. In that case, the attacking player can focus near all his actions in microing the fights, making threats, forcing his opponent to react accordingly, and he will still have near perfect production at home. Meanwhile, the other player forced to micro his fights as well will not be able to queue units at the right time and will fall behind because of it. The population deficit will grow until the game is definitely over. I think that it is quite a big advantage. For comparison if used correctly by a good player it would be kind of as if a player is with a game speed of 0.7 while his opponent is at 1.0, normal speed. While both players have the same skills and would make a good decision at a good time, having your game slow down allows you to make more actions that are valuable at a critical time of the game. However, if both players are booming, it makes almost no difference as both players will have the time to do all meaningful actions, and the boom will be the same. It may still boost some players' booming ability, so it may also be unfair for that reason, but i don't really know about that personally. I am saying this based on (maybe a bit limited) experience. There's a certain player that has a similar skill level as me. If I recall correctly I have a slightly higher win ratio against him when he is not using ProGUI. However when he used ProGUI I had 0-3, and it was not even close. He simply made what I think is a perfect use of the mod, forcing fights mid-game and getting a pop advantage I could not recover from. I will give a little more intuition on how this can affect competitive games by giving the example on how macros are viewed in Age of Empires 2. Basically, any kind of macro is banned, and you can see in this video how even the simplest macros are problematic: 0 A.D. is not AoE2 of course but still that shows macros can escalate into a huge advantage. So if powerful macros are found with @Mentula's mod then that gives what i think could be an unfair competitive advantage as well. The same can be said with autociv where building hotkeys give a huge advantage (when used properly, of course). The difference for me is that it is a feature that should so obviously be in the game, that it makes it fine. But anything further than that, I am not so sure. AoE2 also had some grey areas with the building range indicator, and some mods like small trees or age of cubes. I hope you see my point. I personally wouldn't mind too much in team games which are less serious and where we try to balance it before game start, however if I expect the game to be competitive when I really want my level to clash with the opponent, that's gonna be a problem for me. Of course I know that neither @Atrik and @Mentula intend to do any wrong and I respect the openness of your programs, but still that can cause a problem when a powerful feature is released. Personally I would like very much for the AI to have an enhanced training algorithm. Personally a long time ago I modified their queuing algorithm to grow population faster, however it is not worth much as I didn't touch the other parts of the AI to go with it. We can see that in the following screenshot where my AI (red) grew population much faster in the early game than Petra (green), where they both had the same gather rate at a medium difficulty each:

Looks good to me. I would also be interested in some form of a guard against sending resources to an enemy, a good number of games is with fixed diplomacy where we only want to send resources to allies

It's not new for me at least. Perhaps a few alphas old. The bug happens kinda rarely and randomly for me, only for buildings that are being built (so it's not really a problem). If I deactivate then reactivate in-world health bar (tab hotkey for me), then the actual health is displayed as it should be.

Imo what 0 A.D. is lacking most is a campaign, and second would be better performance.

Maybe wait a little in the lobby before trying to rejoin the game, in case the bot is slow to assign ratings. Or use custom ratings mod to eliminate that possibility?

Good idea, could be nice if we could name replays and perhaps provide a description. Also civilisations are missing

For the match between @Edwarf and @MarcusAureliu#s, I have no news from either player, so they get 0 point. For the match between @chocapoca and @seeh, chocapoca did not answer seeh, who wins by forfeit. With no more updates, the tournament will end on these results.

Thanks for the update This was the last round of the tournament The 5th and last round is still ongoing with some delay, but since we have an odd number of participants, one doesn't get a pairing and has a "Bye". This happened to be you this round :D

I noticed that too, since the beginning of the alpha (it didn't happen before). It is related to the initial explored area when the game begins, there can be explored berries near the end of the explored area, but when you have a unit scout near the berries, but without the berries being in its line of sight, then the berries will disappear (and that includes the minimap). They will reappear forever when they get in the line of sight of one unit.

Rename the file adding ".zip" in the end which was removed for some reasons

Feldfeld vs Dakara Feldfeld vs Dakara.zip

I'll explain a few of my votes. I voted no for #7 because elephants are already borderline OP in my opinion and this will buff them a lot. I imagine this will make them 1-hit kill a lot of units. On top of that, personally i'd like perhaps a return of catapult splash damage and i'm not sure the change prepares well for it. I voted no for the cavalry nerfs for reasons I already explained in this thread. Voted no for #9 pikemen because while the current situation may be not great i feel this change lacks a bit of vision and turns them slowly into spearmen. Voted no for #11 crossbows because in my opinion they are rather weak. Voted yes for all well supported proposals except #2 Alexander which I skipped. Voted yes for #3 unit specific upgrades. IMO it is good that it is a complete change (and not divided into many changes) because otherwise it would be way too slow, and the changes go well together. Whether the upgrades themselves are good, that I don't know without playtesting but it looks like a nice change to try for me. It also acts as a cav nerf as it removes the cavalry speed and health upgrades. It would be nice if a changelog for the mod can be shown in the game for people who don't follow the forum. I remember autociv had some form of changelog when it was updated.

Replays of round 4 (Community Mod 0.26.3): FTS2-Round4.zip