Feldfeld
-
Posts
480 -
Joined
-
Days Won
11
Posts posted by Feldfeld
-
-
8 minutes ago, Norse_Harold said:
Okay, thanks for the reply and clarification on this.
By "one update" during the tournament, does version 0.26.2 of community-mod count as that "one update"? Or do you mean one more update beyond version 0.26.2?
The tournament started at 0.26.2, so I meant one update beyond that.
But that's just a simple personal wish. I don't really mind if there are more updates. I'd say there shouldn't be too much changes at a time (so I would suggest something like: release every 2 weeks, have a decent amount of changes but not too much)
20 minutes ago, Norse_Harold said:Yeah. And, before any release there should be some playtesting done in TGs with the exact commits that are being considered for a new release. The player base are not our beta testers.
Given how hard it was in the past to make players go out of their way to install gameplay/balance mod, or to play SVN, I'd say it's probably good to have players directly test the next release. Of course it wouldn't be nice if it was so bad it makes them go back to vanilla and then not bother with the mod afterward, but I hope it's not something that can happen.
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, Norse_Harold said:
There's an ongoing tournament that is expected to last until at least October 30th. Players are using the community-mod for its current fixes of critical bugs.
Think about what happens if the community-mod suddenly changes mid-tournament. It will end up benefiting certain tournament players who have relevant skills, strategies and practice with the civs affected by the community-mod. This would end up creating an unfair situation for tournament players.
We need a solution to this problem. Suggested solutions follow.
- Create a separate mod with only the bugfixes, which the tournament players will use. Example: copy community-mod v0.0.26.2 as it is now to a mod named community-bugfixes.
- Feature freeze community-mod until the tournament is finished.
- Ask the tournament players to not use the community-mod for tournament matches. But, I think it's too late for this because the first round was probably played with community-mod enabled.
Thanks for your concern!
Please note that my tournament had a few objectives regarding the community mod:
- Make it popular with the multiplayer community (it ended up being adopted without needing help from the tournament)
- Test the new features of the mod, try to find out what's broken for balanceThat is the reason why I required the community mod, it's not really because it fixed the Hans (if I wanted I could still have gone without it).
The competitive aspect of the tournament came after these objectives. I didn't intend the tournament to be really competitive. (though if players have an opinion if future tournaments should be more/less competitive they can message me)
As for my wish for community mod updates with respect to the tournament: I wished for no more than one update during the tournament (so before October 30). Other than that it's free.
-
1
-
Feldfeld vs kun0
We agreed before playing to make it a BO3, to make for a better learning experience.
SpoilerFeldfeld 2-0 kun0
The results will still be reported as 1-0 on challonge for consistency-
2
-
-
5 hours ago, vinme said:
they have to be CLOSE to the 3 armor hero, in value, otherwise no scenario will justify their use.
Considering you can't retrain heroes once they die, yes, there would be.
-
7 hours ago, G.O.A.T said:
My best guess of winner:
ValihrAnt (2322) vs thephilosopher (1305) -> ValihrAnt
Stockfish (1833) vs Dakara (1772) -> Francais
Feldfeld (2169) vs kun0 (1547) -> novax
Edwarf (1861) vs PhiliptheSwaggerless (1646) -> NastasenIf you need still one player I could join with any publicly shared account
I see that smurfs live rent free in your head
I'd like to see the prediction come true though - this means that matches get played
-
The tournament has started! Here is the list of players:
@ValihrAnt(2322)
@Feldfeld (2169)
@Edwarf (1861)
@Stockfish (1833)
@Dakara (1772)
@Philip the Swaggerless (1646)
@kun0 (1547)
@thephilosopher (1305)Unfortunately, due to having 10 players registered, two players couldn't make it to the 8-player brackets. I am sorry for not having everyone participate, and I give special thanks for these players who by registering made this tournament more likely to happen:
________________________________
The bracket is seeded, and is available on challonge, you can find it here: https://challonge.com/l9vi81d9
The seedings have been done using 0 A.D. elo, which is convenient and looks quite close to reality.This gives us the matchups for the first round!
ValihrAnt (2322) vs thephilosopher (1305)
Stockfish (1833) vs Dakara (1772)
Feldfeld (2169) vs kun0 (1547)
Edwarf (1861) vs PhiliptheSwaggerless (1646)________________________________
The deadline for the first round is Sunday 16, 23:59 UTC
Please try to organize your match as soon as possible using forum private messaging! Beware of timezone differences.
Once the match is over, please announce the result in this thread (possibly hiding it in spoiler) and provide the replay.
Please message me personally if your opponent doesn't answer you after 2-3 days.
You will find the precise game settings in the first post of the thread. Verify them before readying up in the lobby.
-
5
-
-
Registrations are closed! Bracket will be announced soon.
-
I'll probably make brackets on challonge yeah
-
1
-
-
19 hours ago, rm -rf said:
You could also implement the swiss system. The top half is paired with the bottom half.
It's an idea, but I wanted the tournament to run quickly. With this amount of players, and 3 rounds, losing one match means not winning the tournament, much like with bracket system but with perhaps a smaller appeal. But it's true it means more matches for players, and more balanced the longer into the tournament
I'll keep it in my backlog.
We need at least 2 more players to make at least a silver mini-bracket!
-
In case a match doesn't get played on time I will hear the arguments then take a decision based on that. Players can freely schedule their match using the forum private message.
BO1 for weekly schedule is a bit weird indeed but it was clearly the favored option based on votes so I went with that. It won't necessarily stay that way in next tournaments.
-
I announce that the tournament will start next week!
It will use a weekly schedule, and have a BO1 format. I did not decide yet if it will use seeded or random brackets as I did not gather enough opinions. Feel free to give your opinion if you registered!
Registrations are still open, and will be until Sunday 9 October 20:00 UTC, and I will announce the brackets before Sunday 22:00 UTC.
Once they are announced, you will know who is your opponent, and you will have 1 week to play your match. I strongly encourage you to use the forum private message feature to schedule your match. If you meet your opponent in lobby, you can of course play your match on the spot, but please do not count on it! This is not guaranteed to happen.Even if you registered, it is not guarranteed you will get to play the tournament. It depends of if the number of players registered fit well. Here is how I intend to complete the brackets:
There will be a Gold Bracket that will contain up to 8 players.
If more than 8 players registered, then having a Silver Bracket is a likely possibility. If we have around 16 players registered, then there will be a 8-player Silver Bracket for sure. If we have 12 players registered overall, then I will message the 4 players that didn't make it to the Gold if they are interested in playing a 4-player mini bracket.If you missed the registration deadline, do not forget that I intend to organize more tournaments like this if it goes well. So if there are no problem, then next tournament will be in around 1 month.
________________________________________________
I registered the players that announced being available with the weekly schedule. If you can't play this edition of the tournament, please tell me and I'll unregister you.
Currently registered (10 players):
@Feldfeld@ValihrAnt @Philip the Swaggerless@Stockfish@thephilosopher@seeh@Dakara@kun0@Edwarf@BeTeWaiting for confirmation:
@Emperiorplease tell me if this schedule is good for you.
Xpert told me in lobby his intent to participate. Please post in this thread to confirm.-
1
-
2
-
-
That is a change from a25 -> a26, not the community mod
-
7 minutes ago, seeh said:
ok, then i do the same
"If you're short on players and include anyone down to about 1200, I'll play. I'm not as good as anyone else who's signed up, but jost for fon or so .
Welcome! Please at least pick a schedule (or say that you are fine with any)
For players registering that announce something sounding like "if you're short on players" will be guarranteed to play if less or equal than 8 players registered and if we are close to 16 players registered. However, if we are more than 8 players but not quite close to 16, then they will have lower priority but could then register as sub if they wish to.
-
2
-
-
19 minutes ago, thephilosopher said:
If you're short on players and include anyone down to about 1300, I'll play. I'm not as good as anyone else who's signed up, but I'm a 1300-1400 player.
In game name: thephilosopher
Prefer BO1, weekly games or evening lightning round.
Everyone welcome!
I'd say the purely competitive aspect is not the objective of this tournament series. The focus is more about promoting the community mod, trying out its features, and making tournaments in 0AD in general more appealing (so if this has success other tournaments can be made basically)
That said, I can see how the already registered contestants can somewhat be scary, on top of that the seeded format would mean the lowest seeded participant is guarranteed to be against Valihrant, etc.
As such, I will offer a new option for which players can vote: do you want the brackets to be seeded or random?
If brackets are random, anyone could be against anyone starting from round 1. So lower seed players at least have a chance to be against a not-too-strong player and have a good fighting in first round and perhaps even advancing.
This also mean that, for example, me and ValihrAnt can be matched in first round, making one of us go down already. This is not the most competitive setting, but can be interesting and enjoyable due to non predictabiliity of result.
So I invite people to vote if they have an opinion on the matter, personally I abstain. Players who already registered can edit their post, I won't miss it.
-
1
-
-
18 minutes ago, Stockfish said:
Put me in Mr. Feld!
- I would prefer max 16 players.
- 1 Game per week.
- I don't mind at what time.
Welcome!
I registered you for the weekly format therefore (1 round per week)
There is also the option for the tournament to be played quickly in one single day. -
11 minutes ago, Player of 0AD said:
Isn't that way too easy for Vali?
Easy or not, this is the best option for a tournament. BO1 would def feel too quick when this is over. Also imo nothing wrong for a dominant player to inevitably win (every) tournament, people do like to see dominant performances, and I believe this increased the popularity of many sports/games.
Regardless, someone would need to step up if we don't want that to happen
4 minutes ago, LetswaveaBook said:I tried to host a tournament (to be precise: I tried to host the biggest tournament of 2021) and it failed. I wanted to give players the responsibility and the ability to find their own schedule.
However after a while, I was busy with work and didn't visit the lobbies enough to encourage players to play their rounds and the later rounds didn't get scheduled.
So either you need to have strict laws about who to boot if a match isn't played, or dividing players into a (small) league would a solution (or possible multiple leagues). If there are irresponsible players in a league, it is easy to kick them. Also in a classic tournament, you are supposed to meet one single opponent and it delays you if (s)he doesn't show up. In a league format you can move to the next round and play against the missing opponent later.
This is why I left the option open for the tournament to be played on a single day, on Sunday, that way all what a player needs to do is to show up at the scheduled time and then play the tournament, and the tournament would finish quite fast if the BO1 option is chosen. Also if one player doesn't show up there is the possibility of finding a substitute in lobby.
-
1
-
-
Small note: regardless of the format for the other rounds, the finals will be in BO3
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, rm -rf said:
lgtm. I would love playing it or watching it.
Why not considering tag team tournaments (eg: Nation Cup) too?
Thanks for your interest. You can announce your favorite schedule(s) and format, even if you don't want to participate in the first edition it is good for me to know what would be most favorable for the players.
For tag team tournaments, it can be a possibility if this simpler format works well and we can do regular tournaments. For now I use a simpler format because I want it to succeed, and from experience from other organizers, it is hard to organize a 0 A.D. tournament.
-
1 hour ago, rm -rf said:
@FeldfeldThank you for the update.
Would you mind adding feldmap as top dir in your next archives? It prevents zip bombs and eases the overall operations.
I'll look into it next time
-
8 hours ago, vinme said:
Great idea, id be willing to play.
id advise to make a tournament that seems so easy that theres no way that there will be complication/issues/problems, like overshoot on biting what you can chew, baby bites.
this way is best, as there isnt consistent tournament culture/foundation in 0ad and before it gets established through many tournaments, there will be less interest/higher difficulty of pulling it off for a variety of reasons.
So id advise best of 1, more dynamic, less tiresome to players so more are willing to play, doesnt take months to organize and a year to finish like 16 or 32 player best of 3 with 1 game per week.
8 players seems like the best sizing to start with, not too small not too large, maybe add in rating requirements later, when the demand is there like 1500+ 1600+ etc. also would be interesting to see 1800+ 4 player tournament, also later ofc.
Id extremely strongly advise doing tournaments in single bursts, in terms of time frame, ive seen a few tournaments have very frustrating and tiresome issues with the plan being that they'd last week or 2 but then dragging on for months, etc.
PPL wont prioritize 0ad, since its just a very niche game, if they stop feeling like playing they'll just not come online for weeks, even after signing up for a tournament, or having an upcoming match, its much more predictable, that som1 saying they are willing to play in the next 1-3 days will more likely than not, follow through compared to say having ppl promise theyll play every week which i assure you, will backfire 99% and cause complications.
even 1 day tournaments, seem fine if you ask me, since itll take each player 3 games tops, if its best of 1. just need to have them be online on a specific time, and have lets say 3 hours free.
So the main issue im foreseeing is abandoment, so make sure you have a contingency for this, ie 0 tolerance policy, if you miss that x schedule, then tournament host gets involved, sets time immediately, and whoever misses that one forefits by default.
The second issue im forseeing is player online time alignment, this should be heavily focused on so it goes as smoothly as possible, setting it up thoroughly so no issues arise later.And the final issue is ofc, ppl joining it in the first place, which i already mentioned would be improved with less commitment demanding formats, but also, best if from announcement, to the tournament being filled up, minimal time passes, so initial players who have joined, do not lose interest/forget about it.
ideally, with the fastest paced 1 day tournament, you announce the tournament, in 1 day it ges filled, you announce who plays who, and next day it happens, and finishes so the whole thing would take 2 days form announcement to finish.
setting specific start time, for each day gameplay, would be very valuable as when the rounds progress, people will always be coming online on the same time and there will be no ambiguity/room for issues and delays in terms of people cooperating in pms to oragnize meetups, delays in round progressions as many ppl inevitably cant progress when opponent doesnt respond or when they cant agree on time. Also for contingency on abandon, people should "log" themselves coming online in forums, and organize there, so there is history.
I agree with your points about the simplicity of the format. Indeed the tournament should be smooth
I have no intention of adding rating requirements. I don't think we could afford it unless the tournament gets real popular, and even then, having gold/silver brackets would allow for best possible level in top bracket anyway. Also, the purpose of the tournament is experimentation with new features/balance, not necessarily high competitiveness.
The most successful 0 A.D. tournament had a weekly round format so I'm still quite open for this format. Having only 3 rounds and single elimination should prevent some of the drawbacks, but I know it's not foolproof and issues could happen. See
Maybe I was not enough clear on that point, but the daily/lightning format would only take place on Sunday, again unless the tournament gets popular enough. It's simply the most convenient day for most people. That said if we can afford it I'll offer alternatives.
For that format, I indeed intend to be very clear on the schedule (eg it starts at Sunday 13 UTC and I link to a website for local conversions). Maybe I'll also add a check-in but I intend to let registration open for the whole week.Regardless, let's not focus too much on possible issues, so the thread is easy to read
-
2
-
-
@psypherium @Feldfeld @ValihrAnt @camel @Boudica @ffffffff @JC (naval supremacist) @Unknown_Player @borg- @chrstgtr @Lefo @Pudim @Philip the Swaggerless @Stockfish @PhyZik @itrelles @nani @Hannibal_Barca @LeGenDz @phoenixdesk @LANDLORD @kizitom @mord @user1 @elexis @Stan` @SaidRdz @Emperior @Emacz @Dunedan @Ivaylo @yilmazgng @go2die @MorTak @Imarok @sarcoma @Lion.Kanzen @D_D_T_ @R4PT0R @Servo @Itms @coworotel @badosu @sphyrth @wowgetoffyourcellphone @faction02 @feneur @Issh @PrincessChristmas @RolandSC2 @Jofursloft @CAGD_lulofun @HirnWolf @Dakara @thankforpie @mgx @ffm2 @andy_beauty @King_Soly @Ammaz @carthage @AltosLagos
Old ping list I know
-
3
-
-
The second edition of 0 A.D. Friendly Tournament Series has started! Here is the list of players:
ValihrAnt (2345)
Feldfeld (2201)
borg- (2169)
weirdJokes (1913)
Edwarf (1861)
LetswaveaBook (1815)
Dakara (1778)
PhiliptheSwaggerless (1642)
011235813 (1598)
MarcAurel (1547)
alre (1500)
chocapoca (1493)
seeh (1150)
Bete (1108)________________________________
Round 5 matches:
@Feldfeld vs @Dakara
@ValihrAnt vs @Player of 0AD
@Edwarf vs @MarcusAureliu#s
@Philip the Swaggerless vs @BeTe
@rm -rf vs @LetswaveaBook
@chocapoca vs @seeh
Bye (no game for this round, +1 point): @alreThe deadline for this round is Friday 16, 23:59 UTC.
Please try to organize your match as soon as possible using forum private messaging! Beware of timezone differences.
Please message me personally if your opponent doesn't answer you after 2-3 days.
Brackets: https://challonge.com/sv36zmko
________________________________________________
Game settings:
SpoilerThe games will be played using feldmap, in Mainland Balanced, in typical 1v1 settings, free civ pick, and using the Community Mod at the latest version available at the time of the match.
The map settings are:
- Map size: Small
- Population cap: 250
- Starting Resources: Low
- No fancy other settingsBiome rules:
- Be sure to have feldmap updated to 0.2.1
- Select random biomeTournament announcement message:
SpoilerWelcome everyone
Following a suggestion from @Lion.Kanzen
I thought it would be indeed a good idea to try to host a tournament to promote the mod and its advantages.
This would be a friendly tournament where it is encouraged to try out stuff you think is OP and should be fixed, and stuff that has been modified by the Community Mod to see if it works well. This is not required though, you are free to play however you like.
The 2 mods required to play the tournament is the Community Mod https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/83784-introducing-the-official-community-mod-for-alpha-26/
And feldmap https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/53880-feldmap-a26/The settings for individual games would be the same for all of them. Basically always Mainland Balanced and typical 1v1 settings. I will post the exact settings later though player agreements could also be made.
Now for the actual tournament format: the primary goals I want to achieve is speed (it's a tournament series so there will continuously be new tournaments of the same format, ideally) and balanced player matchups in order to have proper testing of gameplay balance features.
The speed requirement means that the tournaments will be single elimination. Double elimination just takes too long.
The tournament will be seeded meaning early on matchups could be imbalanced, so to avoid it being too hard I would limit the number of participants to 8 for a tournament, however if there are enough players interested there could be multiple brackets (Gold Silver) so anyone can play.
Vote whether you want the tournament to be seeded or not!Now that this is settled, there remains the scheduling. I have multiple formats in mind, and I would like your feedback for which you prefer/think is best. Considering there will be 8 players per tournament/bracket, that means the duration is 3 rounds. Here are the possibilities
- Weekly (1 round per week, players schedule their match in PM)
- Lightning (tournament gets played in a day, each round just after the previous one, on Sunday at European afternoon (eg 13 UTC) or European evening (eg 18 UTC)The tournament could start as soon as next week. So i invite potential participants to announce what scheduling format they prefer, and potentially already sign up for these schedules. Please note that I would not be able to play/help scheduling in European evenings. A forum account is required for signing up. Here is a sample message you can use to sign up:
- In game name: Feldfeld
- Interested for the following schedules: Weekly, Lightning European afternoon (Sunday 13 UTC)
- BO1 or BO3?: BO1
- Seeded or random brackets?:______________________________________
Interests:
Weekly : Feldfeld ValihrAnt PhiliptheSwaggerless Stockfish thephilosopher seeh Dakara Edwarf Bete
Lightning European Afternoon (Sunday 13 UTC) : Feldfeld ValihrAnt vinme seeh Dakara Edwarf
Lightning European Evening (Sunday 18 UTC) : thephilosopher seeh Dakara Edwarf
BO1: Feldfeld vinme PhiliptheSwaggerless thephilosopher Dakara Edwarf
BO3: ValihrAnt
Seeded : Valihrant Bete
Random brackets : DakaraFirst edition:
SpoilerList of players:
@ValihrAnt(2322)
@Feldfeld (2169)
@Edwarf (1861)
@Stockfish (1833)
@Dakara (1772)
@Philip the Swaggerless (1646)
@kun0 (1547)
@thephilosopher (1305)Brackets: https://challonge.com/l9vi81d9
-
13
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, SneakEP said:
i don't see this one on my mod lists after i do the zip. (autociv worked) help?
Try to make it so it has a similar folder structure as other mods. So a folder named "feldmap", and immediately after there should be a mod.json file. Alternatively try the pyromod installation (drag and drop the file to 0AD shortcut to start the game)
-
1
-
-
I updated the mod for a26, there should be no change in map generations from the version in a25. If I finish the ongoing patch for balanced maps, I will update the mod again.
The old versions will be kept available for downloading for compatibility with replays
-
3
-
2
-
Smurf tag.
in General Discussion
Posted · Edited by Feldfeld
For a person to be identifiable, according to the GDPR, doesn't mean that you need to be able to fetch his full name (and birthdate...) from the data you have stored. It only means that he can be distinguished from other people.
"At its most basic form, whenever you differentiate one individual from others, you are identifying that individual. Any individual who can be distinguished from others is considered identifiable." (https://gdpr.eu/eu-gdpr-personal-data/)
Considering the accusation being that both usernames and IP addresses are collected, we would need to consider multiple kind of identifiers: the username, the IP address, or the pair (username, IP address). From what I've read, the username is enough by itself. But let's develop a bit:
What is an "online identifier" according to the GDPR? They provided in their website a non-exhaustive list containing IP addresses, cookie identifiers, RFID. (same source as above). But it is non-exhaustive, and from https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/what-is-personal-data/what-are-identifiers-and-related-factors/ we have a more detailed description:
"Other examples of online identifiers that may be personal data include:
And even more precise: "An individual’s social media ‘handle’ or username, which may seem anonymous or nonsensical, is still sufficient to identify them as it uniquely identifies that individual. The username is personal data if it distinguishes one individual from another regardless of whether it is possible to link the ‘online’ identity with a ‘real world’ named individual."
The source here is the UK GDPR but it doesn't differ from EU GDPR wrt. identifiers https://www.gdpreu.org/differences-between-the-uk-and-eu-gdpr-regulations/ "The UK’s GDPR uses a common format with the EU’s original legislation. This means it’s pretty much identical. To remain GDPR compliant, those working with information systems must follow the same rules as the EU’s GDPR lays out."
Here the username collected are tied to account created in 0AD lobby, which fits the description.
What about IP addresses? (by themselves): I have to say that the EU GDPR website is not very clear on the subject. It is true that multiple people can hide behind the same IP address. For example, it can cover an household. But even the ISP can't precisely identify one user behind an IP address, at best it identifies an household, and even that is unreliable because of potential wifi sharing, or perhaps hacking. From what I remember, that detail has proven to be important in court, invalidating some proofs featuring IP addresses. But then, why again was the IP labeled as "online identifier"? Maybe because it does discriminate users most of the time even if not 100%? Maybe because they wanted to voluntarily leave some doubt to make it easier on the court, for them or for service providers.
On another note, WFG had to get GDPR compliant, and they don't collect more meaningful identifiers than usernames or IP address (ask @elexishow much effort he put into the GDPR compliance). Some more info in https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/UserDataProtection
That said, this doesn't mean GDPR can be applied in this situation, maybe this part (from my first source) can be debatable:
"Furthermore, the GDPR only applies to personal data processed in one of two ways: