badosu

Ok, I think I understand now, will there be banning of civs in the Bo1?

This is gorgeous, really nice work

@DerekO The rules are not too clear, unless I make them up. We need the group stage rules, afaik it's Bo1 on group stage. We can proceed without the video, it's not essential nevertheless. What's important is to have clear what are the group stage rules. This does not make sense, it's a Bo1. The banning suggestion was in your original text for rules, can you clarify? If we can have this step clarified I can make the video asap.

It's not a problem, you can play along the week and even play all 3 matches on next weekend. Also, the deadline rules are only to formalize dealing with unresponsive players, if a player communicates ahead of time exceptions can be made. We just want to have fun after all

One naive idea is to make an elevation map with perlin noise on the area you assign for the mountain then make a linear elevation increase gradient towards the center. https://hackernoon.com/how-to-make-mountains-memorable-with-perlin-noise-76f93da23601

Can you make a list of the rules that I will present? For now only for the group stage.

@DerekO We might want to make a video about the rules for the group stage. As far as I understand: - Each player bans a civ that's applicable to both players, maybe higher rated bans first? - Map is balanced mainland small, 300 pop and it's a best of 1 - Maybe we allow players to request rematch if biome is savanna or tropical? Request must be done 30s in the match. If both players consent they can fix biome - Maybe we should make a deadline for game to occur until next Sunday at 19:00 CET, if one player is absent on lobby at that time it's a forfeit, if both players are absent and they don't fulfill match until end of day, it's a tie (or both gain no points if possible to implement) - Matches occur twice per week, between Friday 19:00 CET until next Sunday 19:00 CET. A player might fulfill up to 4 matches on the overlapping weekends to make scheduling easier, but can't advance more than the current week. For example, week 1 started previous friday and a player didn't fulfill it yet, they may fulfill week 1 and week 2 matches on the next weekend. They can't fulfill all 3 matches on the first week. Email and PMs will make it clear which players you must play on your current week and what's the deadline to make things easier.

@DerekO Can we postpone it until tomorrow afternoon? Let's see if @borg- or @ValihrAnt join first. Otherwise it will be just a dispute for second place lel

Well, if you gonna send email tomorrow morning, does this mean sign up is closed? If so I can prepare video with group seeding for u to send on email.

No repeating civs. No need, it's still a Bo5 but winners start with a 1-0 lead.

I am not sure how to rephrase. What I mean is, the player who gets to the winners final has to play against the best player from that bracket, then has to play against the best players in the grand finals from the losers bracket (which includes the other finalist from winners bracket). If the winners grand finalist does not have an advantage, like for example starting 1-0 in the last match he's being punished for being good. He could for example throw a game before and just win games in the losers bracket to get to the finals. Some big tournaments with 2x elimination do this, or they have some other mechanic to account for, having a mini match called "reset stage", a bo3 for example, that if the losers finalist wins he just proceeds to the actual grand finals match, otherwise he loses.

.

Yes, but picking the order is still relevant, especially if it favors a player to win more games first and bypassing the last maps. For the Bo3s, players ban and pick civs for a pool. E.g.: P1 (Higher rated) and P2 -------------------------- P1: Bans ptol / P2: Bans brit -------------------------- So P1 picks ptol/gaul/sparta in civ pool and P2 picks brit/gaul/rome. 1st game: P1 (higher rated) picks ptol, P2 picks rome 2nd game: P2 (winner) picks brit / P1 picks gaul 3rd game: Remaining civs, P1 sparta / P2 gaul For the 2nd game I think winner picking first is better as the loser can pick a counter civilization.

> Would you like me to split the double elimination bracket in two or not see this for reference. I have made it double elim. I think the simplest 2x elimination model, like from the last tournament is fine. As an addendum, to not punish the winners finalist we should give him 1 game ahead of time for the last match. Otherwise we are really just punishing the finalist forcing him to take on the strongest players, while others can branch out to the losers bracket and sneak into the finals. So, in this case the winners bracket finalist starts the match with a 1-0 lead (as is done often in other big tournaments).

Most probable, the idea is that we have most balanced matchups towards the final stage. So we avoid of a death group kicking out 2 good players and/or having the most exciting matchups happen at the first brackets and taking out the excitement from the final stages.

@ValihrAnt @borg_ Since @Feldfeld has registered would you care to join so we can have some challenge on the finals?

I mean, set a max limit on current wolf count and don't spawn if this limit is reached. It will punish those that aren't cleaning up their base though and benefit those who did since they won't have to care about spawning, but that might be a feature instead of a bug :-)

Absolute gold! Thanks for sharing :-). Maybe just making the total wolf count global would be preferable instead of changing the delay, as it still does not scale with time if the spawn rate is higher than the death rate.

If you know how to install mods you can try a campaign, Macedonia: Rise to power. You can download it here: https://github.com/SciGuy42/Macedonia_0ad/archive/master.zip

He does not have the map installed, ask him to see if there's a warning message on top right when he joins a gamesetup with the custom map on. Also, the tiniest discrepancies on the map code can give you an out of sync error to make sure you have identical maps.

Perhaps this could be done by using the custom flags (in this case a custom dropdown) for maps, hopefully being handled by some js helper? That would require some implementation work but would be cleaner than an ad-hoc solution for this case. So for example you could have a helper script for map setup.

By the way, can I set styles dynamically? I see that fonts and some sizes are set in xml files, that would not be optimal as I would want to implement some sort of scaling feature later on.

It depends, if it's as inexpensive as the other widgets already present there's no need to. If I can't find an efficient solution for the missing parts then I might throttle it (but definitely not 5 seconds ). The techs and units part is fine since they register/update/deregister to the ProductionManager, now only to unfinished buildings. Edit: for structures it seems I can listen to events: "ConstructionStarted", "MT_FoundationProgressChanged", "MT_ConstructionFinished"

Well, I don't want to query on every update, instead doing something similar as what TechnologyManager does on the technology progress widget on the right side. From what I've seen, I can use the ResearchProgress widget as a scaffold for the gui. For the production I can patch the ProductionQueue for units and TechnologyManager for techs to manage new/finished units/techs on a new ProductionManager. The ProductionManager will be responsible for managing the items to be displayed/updated/removed. Additionally I can try using what seems like an event bus that's already being used to decouple from the implementation. Now only need to figure out how to do the same for unfinished buildings without querying often.

Does anyone know if it's possible to query all units on production queue without passing an entity? Alternatively, if it's not, how can I make a query for all trainable entities (e.g. barracks, cc, fortress, etc)? This might work: `Engine.GetEntitiesWithInterface(IID_ProductionQueue)`