badosu

cc @user1

2 games, one dc'ed at start commands.txt commands.txt

What do you mean by time option? If it's the relic holding time it's set on gamesetup.

Hmmm.. I was thinking of adding a software level package monitor like wireshark, so would that be ineffective? Should I at least be able to track I'm being flooded?

Hmm.. I didn't experiment much with this but if possible I'd think this would be done on a triggers script. Check out: - https://github.com/0ad/0ad/blob/master/binaries/data/mods/public/maps/random/jebel_barkal_triggers.js - https://github.com/0ad/0ad/blob/b364a8cc7f41fe305e8b436651f1ee59afa3a1e1/binaries/data/mods/public/maps/scripts/TriggerHelper.js In particular the functions which return entities, check owner for an entity and the OnOwnerShipChange callback. Since gaia should not own structures by default (depending on map) it should be easier to just check all gaia's structures (player with id 0). There could be a better way, but you could check this every x seconds or set an array with all the conquerable entity ids or on ownershipchange hook check if all were taken by the same player. As I said, I'm not familiar with this so someone else might know more.

Also water on elevation I think there's a huge unexplored space for new map dynamics in 0ad. Even the more bold maps we have employ restrictions on resources or some cheeky gimmick. In the end the result is the same, spam and overrun. The only map I really feel has any kind of proper layout for a dynamic game is Slopes and that's even considering the other balanced maps.

The production row is just one of the elements that is part of the envisioned Monitor mod. The mods aim is to provide a better UI for both players and specs. The interactivity was not part of the initial plan, and surely it would change on the more advanced versions, focusing more on more and useful 'quick view' checks like units lost, population graphs, income difference etc... I sent you a PM

Yeah, it's looking like malicious behavior from what we've seen so far

@DizakaWhat are you using to monitor? Gonna try setting something up and see from my end too...

Well, there were come requests to other balanced maps, I am not looking forward to change vanilla maps, instead I'm more excited to make new maps with unexplored dynamics in 0ad (or poorly explored). Balanced continent was one of those but I implemented it poorly for the last release so don't take it into consideration. I have now put balanced-maps aside for a bit while I'm focused on Monitor mod, the maps are good enough for a Bo5 on a competitive tournament which was the original goal. But I have taken some map suggestions into considerations and have thought of some ideas (maybe experiment with elevation and ramps is something I intend to do). Another important reason is that releasing a new version is a big disruption to players (migrating to 0.20 from 0.18 has been a big pain for example) so I'll just release a new version when significant improvements are made. This is one of the map ideas I am considering for the next map (with proper adjustments to 0ad):

Sure @mysticjim, I'm honored to have the mod in the spotlight :-). Some overview beforehand: balanced-maps was started at first to provide fair competitive maps, the current vanilla maps, especially with each civilization quirks are not suited for that. Most balanced-maps have these generator parameters: - 3-4 patches of wood near p1 range (global 3 or 4, means each player gets 3 or gets 4), except for savanna biome (the one with sparse wood). For hyrcanian shores, wood is not balanced - One stone and one metal mine around p2-p3 range. Except for maps like Cross or Slopes - Food for both players, this can be either berries or fauna. The total amount is global but if it's berries or fauna can vary for each player. Berries and fauna are valued equally, fauna can be at or just a bit away from edge while berries are usually inside p1 territory. Remainders of distribution of food (around 100-400 food) are placed as 'straggler fauna' inside p1 range. - The max for food, propensity for berries over fauna and the fauna types can vary with biome and map. Berries are restricted to at most 2 extra patches. These are technical stuff that you may want or not to share, but just to give you a detailed idea of how the generation works and how it tries to balance for players. 1) Fixed means fixed positions, so the order of players in game setup (the screen before the game starts where host can set things) is the order of players in map. For example if player 1 is just before player 2, player 1 will border player 2 while in vanilla the order of players within a team is random. There are some interesting games that can be played this way in TG, for example 12121212 (where each player is surrounded by enemies), 11221122 (2 player pockets), 11122212 (one vulnerable player for each team) etc... Valihrant uploaded a recent game on Wrench (fixed) if I'm not mistaken. 2) When a host starts a game with a balanced-maps map set, other players can't join unless the mod is installed. That said, players should still be able to join the game if a vanilla map is set and also host vanilla maps. The mod should block users from joining, but due to a bug on 0ad some players are stuck in 0.18 which might show some error messages. To fix that the player needs to remove the old folder manually and update to 0.20. 3) Some people have asked me to consider sending patches to vanilla a24. I'm not rushing to do that for some reasons. More importantly to do that I need to work on setting custom flags for maps so players can still play the old full-random type of map without having a lot of different map names. Casual players or players just wanting to have fun might want to play like that. There are some other reasons, like time, bureaucracy, having to refactor code to adjust to vanilla code style etc... It's on my mind but I'm not rushing to do it 4) Sure, here are some interesting settings to cover: - Cross 1v1 (medium), TG (one size bigger than vanilla) - Slopes 1v1 (small/medium), 2v2 (m), 3v3 (m,n), 4v4 (nor) - Balanced Mainland (vanilla size) - Balanced Hyrcanian (vanilla size or 1 bigger) - Wrench (1 bigger) Again, thanks for covering it and let me know if there's anything else you want to ask. Some map quirks: - Cross has lakes on the back and sides. The side lakes have more fish than the back ones, and include 1 metal and 1 stone mine, each facing opposite player. Cross is a very tactical game and with a more map control meta. - Slopes has better wood on sides, metal mines on mid, and two side lakes. Each side lake has 2 small patches of fauna and one of metal/mine. Slopes is very aggressive, securing/taking over other players ponds takes a big role in 1v1 and for TG trying to attack at the front is not always the best way, instead chipping away with map control is better.

Not to beat a dead horse, but some examples I just remembered: In Starcraft 1 you need to assign workers to the mineral lines (the games resource) manually every time they are spawned, and they spawn 1 by 1. Or have to queue the worker again, anyway it's some bullshit like that. A player that can micro and constantly assign workers for each spawning facility certainly has a major advantage over those who don't. Does that make it a more interesting game or reflect the players strategical skill? I don't think so. So much that it was fixed in Starcraft 2. One less extreme example is the auto-scout functionality in AoE2 DE that was recently introduced. It does not perform a significant role in high level tiers in the game but still can be viewed as a QoL improvement to some. On the other hand, farms need to be constantly reseeded, which requires wood. High level players don't auto-reseed at the early game due to needing to manage tightly their resources at that stage, however this is indispensable in the later game when their attention need to be shifted elsewhere and the resource rampup is smoothier. Does that mean I think autotrain or autoretreat should be features in the main game? I'm not sure, I'm quite used to how I play the game and I like to think I can be decent without them. But if players discover that this can be a game-changer and makes games more enjoyable in the points that are important, I wouldn't like that to be hampered. Additionally mods that enable improvements like those could be staging grounds for experimental features that improve the game substantially, even differentiating it from run-of-the-mill RTSs. Anyway, just my thoughts.

@user1 Corroborates the UDP flood hypothesis?

crash metadata.json commands.txt

Don't forget to listen to the absolute banger at the final 20 seconds!

Yes, @user1 requested it, does not hurt to try

dc from ricsand and crash, it's unplayable lately :-( metadata.json commands.txt

chrstgtr kristian and superposition dced metadata.json commands.txt

For the record, it's entirely possible for a game that relies on intense micro management to be enjoyable (e.g. Starcraft 2) I just prefer the alternative (maybe because I can't micro for my life ) But at the same time, games like that usually have a simpler resource model. I see AoE more like 0ad than Starcraft for instance.

I was thinking about the fact camps made somewhat of an important role in the ancient battles, their role in deployment and foraging mostly. It would be interesting to allow players to make camp-like structures that act as dropsites. Most factions should have slightly defensive forts, that should be able to be taken down by capture or some other mechanic that does not rely on siege. Romans can keep their camp with slight adjustments to sync with others, but still with all its goodies (and increased cost). Some civilizations could have wagons that would act similarly, more flexible but brittle when hit directly. (They could buff nearby soldiers when garrisoned with women to compensate for that) I am not sure all civilizations would have a camp/wagon structure, I would ask our resident historians on the missing gaps (e.g. kushites, ptolemies, etc). Anyway, this would be a huge introduction that require a lot of adjustments, but would really make the game feel a lot more realistic, especially if camp deployment matches their usage in antiquity. Just some food for thought, ideas?

I like the concept, would enable a gameplay of 'bases', a mechanic I miss when designing maps for 0ad. Currently extra minerals barely hit the spot but not really, they are just not essential for most factions (which could change in a24 with champs rework). Farmlands + forests perhaps could do that, do you think it's possible to add a map script to replicate that? (I think DE has farmlands right, I could look at the source) I would be up trying to come up with a map introducing this dynamic to EA.

You might enjoy the team placement helper on balanced-maps. It groups players into teams and places them as vertices of polygons facing each other. You can see this placement in action on slopes and balanced hyrcanian shores.

I like the original DE concept better, farmstead and storehouses outside of territory does not seem bad. Having territory allows you to protect it better, so it's still encouraged for taking map control. At the same time allows for players using heavy mineral dependent civilizations to not be too far behind if the map gen is not generous, encourages players to constantly scout or make outposts on resource dense spots which is a plus in my opinion. Capturing a stray farmstead or storehouse could make some sense but it feel out of place in my opinion. Farmlands + forests would be awesome

Will a refined mod dependency check be included in A24 to compensate for this? If using balanced-maps requires enabling/disabling all the time just to play vanilla/bal-maps it will practically kill the mod. As an example I would imagine community-maps to be way more popular if they had the 'hide mod' hack implemented, since there are many high quality maps there and quite enjoyable ones at that. I don't mind letting the user know which mods players are using, as long as: 1. All can see, not only host 2. A refined dependency check is added that allows for mods to be shown while not 'greyeing-out' vanilla games. With regard to mods adding features that might be considered hacks: In my opinion any RTS should strive to have as much quality-of-life features implemented while not keeping the game in auto pilot as possible. The idea is to focus players on finding out what their opponent is doing, implement counter strategies, get good trades with superior tactics, be greedy when there's an opening for superior economy, take map control; basically the fundamentals of RTS and what actually makes games interesting. Even though it's inevitable part of this kind of game for players with enough attention control to be able to always be training units have an edge, this should not be decider of games. As well as other attention grabbing actions, like the assign-to-heal feature of autociv (another possible 'cheat' according to some). I don't use both features and I don't condone using those, but I understand the arguments of those who do so. A mod that offers such features should be praised in my opinion, nevertheless I agree any such discrepancies should be highlighted in-game in the spirit of fair play or competitiveness. The points I numbered above detail what I think in practice fix the issue. Another interesting possibility of showing the mods (and ideally offering an option to require mods, when they don't change simulation) is to require anti-cheat/exploit mods. Some of those mentioned before but to recap: 1. Wall/ram/catapults stacking 2. Hill ungarrison abuse 3. Patrol dancing 4. Gaia resource drain 5. Market floating point res gen 6. Some other I forgot

Yep, I will be out this week. If the players proceed their brackets the tournament can continue. Otherwise the tournament will end as soon as I get back.