hyperion

Just delete the metadata.json, it's not needed at all. Don't even try manually fixing it.

Teaching people on how to setup forwarding is not the goal but to let them know they are using a problematic setup. If stun is the only thing they get working, so be it. The main problem I see is they don't even know that there is an issue, which is always the biggest hurdle to address.

Not sure what you are up to, before even creating a game one could pop up a message "Warning: stun enabled, random success, please consider forwarding, read more ...". Connection testing can also be done by the lobby, upon creation of a game or otherwise, which I consider a low traffic solution. The important bit is to educate game hosts that stun is a poor solution in general, the indicator is mostly for people to learn if they aren't able to connect to stun hosts so as to get rid of the impression that it's 0ad fault.

One could indicate whether it's a properly reachable host (forwarding) or randomly reachable host (stun), if people believe stun is a full solution they won't care about a better setup. Also ip6 support could help. Sure there are other reason than stun, but I guess it's the reason in a vast majority of cases.

Please reread his post. The following simply wouldn't make any sense then "Making a general reduction of the range of vision, the player will have to scan the map for new resources, mainly hunting in the first few minutes, watchtower becomes much more important, new CC builds are encouraged, technologies and vision auras like "sibylline books" would again have a good importance, etc.." Well, it's perfectly natural and realistic for those ranges to be different. As we don't build a simulator and as long as there is a very good reason why for gameplay purpose it must be the same unification is a possibility. The one given here is ridiculous. The one given by @Nescio in D3487 is at least reasonable but was shot down all the same. We had such a release and it's plain awful if your units change behavior based on phase. This experiment was reverted right away.

Edited 19 minutes ago by real_tabasco_sauce Well, you liked the statement of @borg- where he suggest 40 instead of your 80. So what I see is salami slice tactics, better to nip this trend in the bud. As for nature, I prefer chess over dice, prefer civilization over ego shooter, I prefer 0ad to be a strategy game over a high apm game.

Ha, it ends with ad hominem ... Well, if I make a patch to increase the vision range of all units to 120m will you support it full heartedly or are you just opposed to changing the game? Ha, it ends with ad hominem ... Well, if I make a patch to increase the vision range of all units to 120m will you support it full heartedly or are you just opposed to changing the game?

Right, ridiculous to be able to see moon and stars. A simple Pythagoras can show you the difference isn't enough to "make sense" For me this a matter about the nature of the game, and I object to any reduction of vision range as this is a bottom less pit. If the precedent already only needs such a meek reason when will this stop?

There is a counter proposal for the stated purpose in the OP which is still not sufficient but clearly more useful towards that goal by @LetswaveaBook in this thread. I don't want longer vision range, because I'm aware why some people push for low vision (has utterly nothing to do with the stated purpose), but I really dislike any further reduction.

Feel free to increase the vision of all units to match catas Yes, they are to fast, faster than inf is fine but not by this much. In A23 they were also much weaker in P1, defense structure were worth more and even anti deathball tactics still existed (splash) making it less obvious. Well, you only hear and see what you want, not much point arguing further. You prefer dice while I prefer chess.

Spaces are forbidden

It is not, at least not of any significance. The issue with cavalry is for them to be usable as they are currently in P1 they will end up OP in P3. It's not about the difficulty to change this but the opposition you will face. Anyway I really dislike this proposal.

The image is very inappropriate for "family". Clicking on an unexpected invite is unreasonable. If one suspects a security issue opening a ticket with Discord Inc is the appropriate turn of action. I agree the OP sounds very unlikely to be true but you never know. ... the other me got infected and suggests to create another account on discord if changing password doesn't help ...

I get that point, but the implementation is currently restraint as far as I understand @Stan` s comment, it would take quite a bit to make this possible without opening the floodgates. I might have misunderstood the comment as well though.

I'd call that spoiling not cheating, as for being able to chat to players I'd prefer if it wasn't possible honestly, then you could permit observers without concern. I don't mind any observer features as long as they have no means to influence the players.

As long as the game allows it I argue it wont be cheating by definition. For me observers should not have any means to talk / signal / influence players in any way in-game. They are observers. As for the current flare implementation I guess it's also due a constraint on the implementation that was possible to get shipped in time and not the ultimate solution thinkable. A third role besides player and observer might make sense, lets call it referee or game master, a role which is meant to preside over competitive games with rules not enforced by the engine.

We went through a whole lot of those "improvements" in around a18 to a21 including vision range depending on phase and ended up roughly were we started off with, the old and current values. Unlike the "improved" version no one seem to have been highly annoyed since then. About time for the next round of disturbance Also low vision range makes it impossible to fully scout maps with slightly more complicated terrain. Having beautiful maps and only being able to see some small stripes of it is sort of a letdown. Guess I'll be forced to play revealed maps only in the future.

There is a huge difference, if you use an alternative medium is deliberate cheating anyway you look at it. If you have the tool right at your finger tip and it's part of the official game it's hard to prevent accidental reveals or even call it cheating. This phenomena is all to well known form some people in the passenger seat in cars.

This breaks the AI and not rendering the borders needs few C++ changes.

True, but you don't have to perform top all the time anyway. One could even agree on a "half-time" break, might be an interesting twist to be able to have a team talk then. The issue with short games is you can only boom and rush once, some harassing maybe, but you simply don't have enough time for strategy, heck just moving your units to your opponent might take a few minutes. Some things which are supposed to have only long term effect like building a good base, trading routes, or corralling loose meaning. While the current meta might be fun in some way it is also somewhat one-dimensional.

Well, when it takes like 20-30 minutes of silly arguments to form teams, decide on settings and what not you are happy if the game only takes 15-20 minutes?

There is some variation between release, but generally it's mostly the same, I remember a 300 pop in 15:xx minutes replay with Britons a long time ago. Can't find the video though. Auto-queue may be the reason here.

What I like most by far is the history section. The rest can clearly be considered an improvement as well, just is it 1024x786 safe?

ofstream isn't the issue, json is mandated to be utf-8, the path is. c++17 offers an overload for using filesystem::path::value_type* instead of a char* though, don't recall a portable alternative otherwise.

ILIKE is obviously wrong, you want the sql '=' for the WHERE here, can't comment on the python part thou, but looks approximately right