Boudica

On many scenario maps, the player starts with extra buildings. When you mentioned Gauls, try selecting the Scenario map type and find the map Arcadia. Gauls get a longhouse at the start. Similarly with the map Azure Coast.

Using WinRAR probably.

I overall liked the gameplay, it just seemed that the small group of elite rank skirmishers healed by elite rank healers became OP. What are are skirmishers supposed to be countered by? Maybe spear cavalry could have a bonus against them? Healing now seems to be more useful, but perhaps it might be too strong now too. Ranged units no longer deal super high amount of damage, so when a healer can get to 16 HP a second, it's really powerful.

Welcome to the forums! The AI is currently mostly useful for new players to learn the basics of the game. One of those things is that sometimes your allies will do dumb things and not react even when you tell them. This looks like you got the important lesson here, so perhaps it's time to join the multiplayer lobby now. Seriously though, it's possible that the AI is improved not to do stupid things like that, but it could help a lot if you could locate and attach the replay files of such games with a description of what happened and when. Please try looking for specific commands.txt and metadata.json files in the replays subdirectory somewhere in the 0 A.D. data directory and attach them with a description when encounter a problem like that.

I've checked that we played on the same team just twice and we lost both of the games. Not sure if this is a good time to leave. I don't know what I should comment about the incident. I understand why you didn't like it. I don't agree with people misusing their technical knowledge of the game like that, especially when they think they are somewhat smart for doing so. Anyway, it might be good to realize that the internet is not really that anonymous as we might like. People can find information about you regardless of whether they share it or not. I'm sure that elexis wouldn't have shared this information unless it was something easily looked up by others. Technically anyone you connect to sees an address. They can look up a geographical location for that address but that might not necessarily even match where you are located physically. Other than not being necessarily accurate, how specific is that piece of information? We could probably assume that you are a human from the planet Earth to begin with. But we can target you much more accurately just by noticing that you have an internet access and can speak good English. Revealing your country can reduce the possibilities to a few million people, but that's still many more that anyone of us can even meet during their life. I think that starting this thread was a good idea to help target the issue of privacy. I'd probably reconsider giving up on the game completely if that is a reason for you to do so. Anyway, I'll leave that up to you. Thanks for the games we played together.

Or just accuse the enemy of being sexist for only targeting women. That should work with today's society.

There was an A23 alpha re-release a few weeks ago, so there are now A23a and A23b versions, which connect to a different lobby each. I know that it took some time for the Linux packages to get updated, so some users didn't see the updated versions in their repositories. Not sure about now.

Rating doesn't get affected if a player leaves the lobby during the game. Could that be the case? Anyway, you should probably post the replays and ask @user1 to look into the issue. Or just ask the player directly to give you the points if you both agree you should have received them.

Thanks for uploading. I'm adding my commentary as a spoiler:

Please locate the replay file files (subdirectory with commands.txt and metadata.json files) and attach them because a proof is usually required. @user1 usually handles these issues, so he'll check if your request is legit and ask Dumbledor to give you your points.

If nothing has changed, it's usually easier for moderators to delete your account, so that you can re-create it. I wouldn't recommend creating another account because that could get you banned. Let me tag @user1, but perhaps there is someone else specialized in these issues. By the way, if you find your user.cfg file, there should be a lobby.password entry, which probably contains your password hash and makes your password pre-entered when available.

Hi, have you tried enabling STUN while opening the host from the lobby? If your ports are correctly forwarded, this shouldn't be needed, but it could help otherwise. I had problems with port forwarding because my internet provider doesn't forward ports unless you pay some extra. On the other hand, some people have problems connecting to STUN-enabled hosts due to some security restrictions. If you are on the same network, connecting directly to the host's local IP address should work even more reliably. There could perhaps be problems with firewall settings, but the problem typically is that people enter the wrong address. Maybe try sharing more details about what you're entering. I hope we can get it to work.

Today we played an epic winter battle with several base swaps and a lot of sieging. Let's try uploading more of the good games. RamboXXX + Boudica + Cesar vs. bbgotbanned + Unknown_Player + Stockfish 2018-12-11_Winter-Battle.zip

This could mean it's already fixed in the SVN version, if you don't want to wait. Can you please confirm, @wowgetoffyourcellphone?

The problem is not you being unclear, but you being wrong. The original formula has only one scenario when it is undefined, that is when no game has taken place. Your formula, on the other hand, has an infinite number of cases when the result is undefined (all cases when the player has never won or never lost). It's not really clear what you mean by symmetrical shape of the formula or why your formula should be rated higher in respect to this property. This is where you should be clear. Except from the definability problem detailed above, I don't think your formula is an improvement due to these additional reasons: Most players' rating is gonna be a negative number, generally unbounded, but typically in an interval too narrow to consider rounding to an integer. The original produces ratings between 0 and 1 and can be naturally thought of as a percentage. With the exception of zero, your formula always yields a transcendental number. I'd rather say that my eae rating (i.e. win ratio against the reference player) is 0.1 (i.e. 10%) instead of having to use -2.197 as an approximation. Your formula doesn't give an intuitive idea of how good a player is. You can mostly only tell if they beat the reference player more often than they didn't. When you get a simple 5% instead, you just see they have won one in every 20 games so far. Your formula doesn't provide any more information than that anyway. The original formula is simple enough for anyone to compute in their head; yours isn't.

This formula isn't better in any way, and it makes the infinity problem worse.

Any chance you could be accidentally making a scroll-up gesture on the touch pad, or touching the mouse wheel or some function buttons that have to do with scrolling? Can you perhaps describe more precisely what exactly is happening? When you zoom out, is it instantly going back?

The problem still persists for me on a recently unupdated SVN.

I don't understand anything you are saying now. You did say you win most of our games. I checked that and saw that it's wrong. I didn't really accuse you of lying, but I pointed out that your estimates were wrong. Anyway, I'm glad that you corrected yourself. Top 10 out of the currently active players sounds much more realistic to me than the top 3 you used to rate yourself. Next time you can just avoid making false claims when you know it leads to a predictable chain of responses that prove you wrong.

You could have noticed that I like to encourage people to post interesting replays, so maybe my like had little to do with you being on the losing side. However, in order to understand that, realizing that the world doesn't revolve around you might be needed, so I don't think we can do much here. You might have promoted yourself to a gold player in your terminology, but we can't just unsee all the many games you one-sidedly lost to players you'd like to view as inferior. I only have the full data of replays between us two, but let me help you calibrate your views using this example. Recently you claimed to win 80 % of games against me. The truth? You only really got to 50 % by winning the last one (which took place after your claim). You didn't resign in a single of those games before the host was closed, but that doesn't make your defeat disappear. Your numbers are way off and I think you should be more respectful towards other players. A top player would probably beat a hobby player like me in at least 90 % of the games.

There might not be a predefined shortcut to only select healthy units, but do you know about the Ctrl+O drag modifier that deselects wounded units from an active selection? Also, if you use numbered groups of units, you could just assign the wounded units to a different key, which takes them out of their original group. Suppose you Ctrl+1'd your army before a fight. Now when you O-select the wounded units and press Ctrl+2, pressing 1 again only selects healthy units of the original army. This could be exactly what you need if you want to keep using the 1 key to select your army after sending wounded units elsewhere.

I removed the extra mods from the replay, so MacWolf and others can find it in the game dialog. Regarding that game, I can't believe you didn't resign when the organ eating commando completely destroyed your eco. ;-) commands.txt

Angen was faster to post his reply, so I'll just emphasize what might be the probable cause in my opinion. The name you are entering is not the game name, so this field might have to be unique for each participant. Since you mentioned before that both of you have the same IP address, I'd think you were talking about the public one, which is really not what we need here. You probably don't have to be afraid to say what exactly you are entering, so we can find out possible problems easier. If the values are actually correct, there might perhaps even be a firewall / router problem.

I'd make sure you are entering the local IP address when connecting directly. That one would probably start with 192.168... Are you sure you are entering the local IP? I suppose you are on the same network. Correct me if I am wrong though.

@user1