Ornatkur

That was obvious server crash commands.txt metadata.json

@user1 Hi, I dont want to report player, because I want to believe this is not intentational. Nevertheless there is two different ratings. I was expecting low level newbie and tried to be nice, and faced regular. Furthermore seems like obvious smurf.

Hi After spending some time waiting next release, I have wondered these ideas: We have current rating system, I would like to have some build in article about it, but for my current understanding it is outstanding and mathematically accurate. Why we could we have also a peer-to-peer rating in next to it? So if you lose to honorable opponent, you could rate him up, or win good match, something like thumbs up? Then you well immediately see, if there is a quitter, lagger, harasser or bad teamplayer. This could prevent multi-accounting, bad sportsmanship and make games like 4x4 easier to balance. Of course, some players will get fast really bad reputation and others unearned good reputation, while others get thumbs down when win game honestly. As a casual player, I have found games more than 1v1 just absolutely too difficult to balance, and in 1v1 games current rating system do not work, because there is too few players, and couple of private plays make distortion to ratings. Not even speaking on multi accounts. Maybe here in forums could be beforehand arranged battles, where people with commitment and almost same rating level could arrange a match. Also, there should be free description in multiplayer, where you can say, "only players over 1300" "Only players below 1300" "No OP civs" "Little wood" etc. etc etc....

I think Macedonians are really well done, they even are close to overpowered, but athens are not so. Buildings are expensive, and no siege workshop. Black coats are devastating, but expensive and die in rock shower.

I'm casual player, i have work and other hobbies, but Macedonians are my civ at the moment, because I like catapults and siege workshop, and many other things. I love historically absolute inaccurate volley from lithobos, but when I cant protect them game is over. Champions could do the job, but I reserve them for offence.

And bad loser rant continues: Today I had really good fight, but moment when I started to lose was when two rams anhilated ten remaining spearman, who could not do nothing damage. Seriosly rams should work only against structures.

Good point. Its just frustrating, when you start game with far better player, and he has Celts, you know you will lose.

Hello, just wondering things.... After playing long time with brits, I decided never again playing with them, because they are obviously overpowered and overplayed. Not very interested any other than 1v1 games at the moment. I have noticed, I almost always face ram attack with rock shower before had make any serious counter force. No idea how to get over that. Another one is ptolemaes early camel rush. When that happens, its almost always game over. Only solution that barely works is attack opponents civic, and drag fighting to his base. In my humble opinion, Celts slingers should have 50% less health to counter that almost every building improves pop cap. Also ram speed is ridiculous. Every siege engine should be 1/5 from normal walking speed. Now they seems like hovercrafts flying over bogs and making sudden hit&run attacks. Romans maybe would have upgrade "Logistics" (Insert: approriate latin word) that makes siege things faster, because they had really advanced army. I'm also wondering what is good behavior in games. Many times I face absolute new player, and I'm almost sad to crush him. Other hand, I'm not a fan of long games, and if I see that I have made fatal mistake, I usually resign because I see no point fighting when knowing end result. Is that right or wrong?

Thank you, had some work pressures.... That article about Elo rating system was really interesting, and returned fully my belief. So in nutshell, if greater rated player beat lower rated player, winner scores just couple of points, and if lower rated beat better player, he scores lots of point and loser lose really many points. I think this is outstanding system. Maybe some words about this in help?

Thank you for wise word Boudica. Real issues might be: 1) first rated game start from 1200. I'm fighting to get back that level, how about starting from zero? 2) I think multiplayer has become much more demanding in last months. 3) It impossible to know, what level opponent you will face. 4) When playing something like 4x4, lower rated players tends to be kicked out or otherwise harassed. I think this is poor behavior. When i host big game, I try to remember tell FFA (free for all) and do my best for balancing. Nothing is more frustrating than wait game start for a hour and then got replaced. In pro game this is ok, but then that should be stated in game name. 5) Should multiplayer game have free text field, that states hosts personal expectations? 6) Is there any kind of help text, which tell how rating works? I havent found. I think well fighted game deserves more points (or less point lose) even if result is defeat. What ever, just saying what I think and feel.

How rating system works? I have tried to study how to play better, and I think I'm getting much better, but my rating just drop and drop. I get asskicked from lower level player, but in some other hand overpower better ranked players. I know I am terrible loser, but are medium players vanished from server? Or should I change my thinking about multiplayer gaming?

And for my confusion, when I check port 20595 on internet, for example, https://portchecker.co/check, i always get port is closed, also opening port by: X75A1 ~ $ sudo nc -u -l 20595 do not help, but now game work. For information, my old speed test and new. With downloading speed 1.9 Mbs i have been played without problem.

Hello Update! Related to new house, I got new internet connection and router. I would like to diagnose exact problem some other time, but I managed to join today every game and to my hosting was possible to join. Seem to be, problem was old mobile router. Nevertheless, internet speed was not problem, because I usually did not get notifications for lagging. What I have done: 1) New Router Zyxel VMG3925-B10B 2) Make hole in the firewall: X75A1 ~ $ sudo ufw status Status: active To Action From -- ------ ---- 20595/udp ALLOW Anywhere 20595/udp (v6) ALLOW Anywhere (v6) 3) Put static IP (dont ask, HC science for me ) 4) Make port forwarding to router I have done all previous with old router without success, I could have joined some games. When I have spare time, I remove firewall hole, port forwarding and static IP and check, if they are necessary. Thank you all involved!

For information, it has happen me already twice, i have started 1v1 game, then after couple of minutes i lost contact to server, and when trying to rejoin I get "port forwarding" error message..... that is frustrating.

Update: Yesterday I was able to join several games, and I did not seem to suffering bad connection. But most of the time I got "Port forwading...." Error message and I seem to be unable host. Still most of the time joining games was almost impossible.

Hello This is amazing project, I wish I could participate. I'm been suffering problems with joining games in multiplayerlobby. Couple of times I have managed to join games after ridiculous amount of time. I got notifications about my ping, unfortunately at time I did not understand concept. Later I concluded poor internet access was reason, but I'm not satisfacted with that, couple of times big game has worked well, and never before had had problems with speed. Problem seem to be joining other servers, and if I host game, no one seem to be able to join. I clearly see lobby activity and I can chat with easy. Might geographical distances be a problem? I'm using Linux mint 18.3 and 0.ad ken wood. My router is ZTE MFD93D and in a speedtest i get ping:14 ms download 22 mbps and upload 10 mbps. Router says UPnP is enabled an port mapping (equals port forwarding?) Src. port 20595 (my IP) Dest. port 20595, protocol UDP+TCP. sudo iptables -L -v gives Chain ufw-user-input (1 references) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination 0 0 ACCEPT tcp -- any any anywhere anywhere tcp dpt:20595 0 0 ACCEPT udp -- any any anywhere anywhere udp dpt:20595 0 0 ACCEPT udp -- any any anywhere anywhere udp dpt:20595 and this gives: $ sysctl net.ipv4.ip_forward net.ipv4.ip_forward = 1 What I am missing? This might be really silly problem, but never before worked with connection related problems and got little clues from net. Thanks!