.gif.2994f0cfe1905a665d5b9cb40eb21f5f.gif)
rossenburg
-
Posts
220 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Posts posted by rossenburg
-
-
8 minutes ago, Player of 0AD said:
Shyft is just another identity of you, which you have used to participate in the toxicity contest which you have described. You think I don't see that?
-
Fortunately, action has been taken on his account, and I can say that it was a good decision because things have cooled down for a while now. We are also taking a closer look at another situation involving "Basiliskos".
-
1
-
-
20 hours ago, borg- said:
If moves units automatically, then it's a cheating.
i guess only quickstart does that? There's a possibility to always check for idle units and assign to work automatically so you never go idle at all or maybe its going too far?
-
3
-
-
42 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:
If I create an AI program that automates the game to ensure that I win every game without having to ever touch my mouse or keyboard is that a "cheat"? If it is a "cheat," can I cure it into "fair play" just by publishing the program?
It Will be a little hard to prevent these kind of things as far as there's nothing like anticheat. Most top players that knows coding do have scripts they use for their own advantage and nobody knows cause they never shared or published. It's also a bit hard to say this mod is a cheat because it doesn't really make any prior changes just like autoqueue helping automate certain tasks
46 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:I am not saying that we should consider @Atrik a cheater, I am saying we need to establish a boundary so that the game remains fun
I agree. But if someone have a cheat and hasn't made it known, nobody will know. that's my point. There are some modifications like reducing prices, faster training, faster units, increasing tower ranges etc that should be considered cheating and luckily these kind of modifications will only result in OSS. Aside that, this mod doesn't really make any difference like doing it manually because you are the one to set which units should be autotrained or something like that. I just checked it recently without paying much attention to it. Imagine @Atrik didn't post it here at all.
-
2
-
-
soon we shall automate everything, sit back and win all games without touching mouse or keyboard
-
1
-
1
-
2
-
1
-
-
@ffffffff's mod also allows you to hear pings from the lobby even when you are in a game. Maybe someone can forge this feature into a mod since fgod was discontinued
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, Helicity said:
Why do bots have such delays? Many bugs seemed to be related to the bots not being able to respond quickly enough - surprising as human reaction time is about 200ms and computers can process much in that time interval.
no idea, that may not be the major cause. There are several factors to consider also, like internet connection etc
-
it's unlikely that its customratings that causes that because when registering a game your actual ratings is assign not the custom ratings that's why its still possible to be able to play 1v1 or team games and the original ratings is adjusted once the game ends instead of the customratings , I think there's PlayerAssignmentsController.js that checks and assign empty slots for each player, once player is disconnected and tries to reconnect it does give them their old assignments back. Probably the bots slightly delays removing a player that has been disconnected from a game which may results in the "you are already in the game" message @MarcusAureliu#s is talking about and a delay in assigning a ratings when the player joins the lobby and tries to enter a game immediately which may also end up in the player joining as spec. Another cause could be internet connection. Not a major problem tho and doesn't really happen often
-
yes the priority should be units, i think currently the default does just that. Shoots units in range and switch to buildings when there's no units nearby. According to the buildingAi script @Stan` sent if there are enemy units within range of the tower, the tower will prioritize shooting at the units over the buildings and if there are no enemy units within range of the tower, the tower will shoot at the closest enemy building. Maybe your towers shoots at both units and buildings when they are in range at the same time because of the modifications you made @real_tabasco_sauce? That will be a huge disadvantage for you cause your towers shooting at both buildings and units wouldnt cause too much to the opponents units
-
33 minutes ago, Gurken Khan said:
I think it already would be a step forward if towers etc. prioritized units. Currently they target buildings randomly even if enemies are around.
But yeah, I would like to be able to tell my towers what/who to shoot at.
i thought as far as units are in range it will ignore building or?
-
15 hours ago, maroder said:
current WIP:
love this.
-
2
-
-
As the meaning of the word "cojone" can vary depending on the region and context in which it is used. Generally speaking, however, the word is used to describe a person who is brave or confident, often in the face of adversity. The root word used "Coglioni" is a vulgar Italian word for testicles.
-
-
14 minutes ago, Yekaterina said:
I argue that he is not affecting anyone else in doing that, because no one else lost or gained any ratings at all.
hi @Yekaterina i understand your point but "farming rating" is like breaking 2 rules he agreed to comply when registering an account in the game. That is - making multiple accounts, and trying to gain ratings by farming from the secondary account. If ratings wasn't that important, i'm not sure it will have been added in the first place so i somehow disagree @Yekaterina. Before making an account we do agree to comply with some rules governing the game (which everyone that has account clearly did), Terms of Service, Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. To maintain fair gaming environment the rating system was introduced to evaluate rookies from pro players. A pro player playing against a rookie to gain point is totally okay so far as the rookie agreed to play. My point is, it might seem okay to some people but as far as he agreed to these rules before creating an account, and intentionally breaking those same rules he agreed to comply with shouldnt be allowed right?
-
5
-
-
13 minutes ago, sternstaub said:
the attack can affect only a single player in a game?
the host is hosting on his computer, once he's hit, everyone connected will shake too. More like a pilot and passengers - host being the pilot, anyone else connected to his game being a passenger. Unless in a case the attacker targets a specific user
-
2
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, 0facts said:
Swordsmen should also be allowed to throw their swords
why so? I think the game is based on historical facts. Throwing of swords? never heard that. Skirms are light inf, nearly considered as hunters , or vanguards. their javelins are meant to be thrown unlike sword units. They do have light shields , another reason they battle in long range. Swordsmen are close range units with medium or heavy armor and shields so i don't buy this idea. Even in a case they decides to add throwing of swords , their armor or shield will have to be decreased to match those of javelineers
-
7 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:
I thought user.cfg would have a couple of options to change scroll speed. The reason I say "default" is because you can change scroll speed with hotkeys, but the change does not persist.
y user.cfg and default.cfg are 2 different files all together
-
1
-
-
there's something you may find useful in default.cfg under gui.session.notification
you can change phase = completed to phase = all . You get notification immediately your ally starts advancing to another phase so you can keep in touch. Normally you get notified when your ally has advanced. But changing phase = all will notify you once ally starts advancing to different phase, and after. Been using for a while now so i know when to advance to another stage so i don't stay behind
. Its not advisable to edit the default.cfg directly , you can make a local settings files (local.cfg) instead. Hope it's helpful
-
1
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, Norse_Harold said:
@user1guanajato was throwing rated matches in rapid succession to give cronelius points.
[2023-01-28 17:47:34+0000] Ratings: A rated game has ended. cronelius. won against guanajato. Rating Adjustment: cronelius. (1673 -> 1681) and guanajato (1424 -> 1415).
[2023-01-28 17:48:22+0000] Ratings: A rated game has ended. cronelius. won against guanajato. Rating Adjustment: cronelius. (1681 -> 1689) and guanajato (1415 -> 1407).
[2023-01-28 17:49:22+0000] Ratings: A rated game has ended. cronelius. won against guanajato. Rating Adjustment: cronelius. (1689 -> 1696) and guanajato (1407 -> 1399).
[2023-01-28 17:50:12+0000] Ratings: A rated game has ended. cronelius. won against guanajato. Rating Adjustment: cronelius. (1696 -> 1703) and guanajato (1399 -> 1392).
[2023-01-28 17:51:57+0000] Ratings: A rated game has ended. cronelius. won against guanajato. Rating Adjustment: cronelius. (1703 -> 1710) and guanajato (1392 -> 1385).
[2023-01-28 17:52:24+0000] Basiliskos: @user1
[2023-01-28 17:52:53+0000] Basiliskos: @user1
[2023-01-28 17:54:15+0000] Basiliskos: guanajato giving cronelius free points
[2023-01-28 17:54:18+0000] Ratings: A rated game has ended. cronelius. won against guanajato. Rating Adjustment: cronelius. (1710 -> 1716) and guanajato (1385 -> 1378).
[2023-01-28 17:55:02+0000] cronelius.: Guanajato is troll
[2023-01-28 17:55:10+0000] Basiliskos: stop playing with him so
[2023-01-28 17:55:14+0000] Basiliskos: he give u points
[2023-01-28 17:55:15+0000] Basiliskos: a lot
[2023-01-28 17:55:18+0000] Basiliskos: a lot of matchsThere might be additional abuses prior to this, as I had joined the lobby just before the start of this excerpt.
Indeed, he does have about 20 multiple accounts. Cronilius, el_gallo_desplamando etc from which he harvest ratings to his main account.
-
2
-
-
On 21/01/2023 at 8:06 AM, Hoze said:
I think I have better understanding now (after ~15hours of debugging
).
In CounterManager.js, the onPress method must be defined to handle onPress events. The event seems to be triggered even prior to any GUI interactions after the game loads because it prints uninformative errors all over when onPress is not defined.
The onPress mehtod from CounterManager.js overwrites the one I would define in CounterResources.js
I try to make the resource icon / counter a button that would make a simple chat message:
Engine.SendNetworkChat("I have " + this.count + " of " + this.resCode + "!");I tried to bind variables resCode and count in various ways.
I tried to make a renamed method in CounterResource like:
class CounterResource { constructor(resCode, panel, icon, count, stats) { //... this.onResourcePress = this.onResourcePress.bind(this); } onResourcePress() { Engine.SendNetworkChat("I have " + this.count + " of " + this.resCode + "!"); } }
For it to be callable in the CounterManager:
class CounterManager { constructor(playerViewControl) { //... this.counters = []; //... for (let resCode of g_ResourceData.GetCodes()) { let counter = this.addCounter(resCode, CounterResource); counter.onPress = counter.onResourcePress.bind(counter); } //... } //... onPress(counter) { counter.onResourcePress(); } }
I don't know how much syntaxes I've tried... I feel like sorry I can't make this seemingly simple thing to work. If you have any clues of what I'm missing, please tell me!
will be lovely if you can share the errors you receive @Hoze
-
3 hours ago, BeTe said:
@user1 Good points, but you opened a new rating-system debate. ELO is one of many systems to evaluate skills, so I'd rather skip that big discussion in this Topic.
I am strictly talking about automation things, not about punishing or awarding. Just give win or lose appropriately. For me, minimal work regarding this is to make Exit and Resign button should have same result in Rated games. Some RTS games doesn't have Resign button at all, I think.
For me it's frustrating to report breaking rules after hard fight. At the end, it also provides you more job than you should have...
i guess it will be frustrating if a host mistakenly got disconnected, came back to the lobby and his point has been deducted? I think your focus is on the other player's side but we should consider the host too. It won't be that wise to make the exit button function the same as the resign button because once you get disconnected from a rated game regardless of the cause:internet issue, pc went off by any means or even ddos (without resign) will be considered an ended game. The exit button is different from resign button because they both play different roles, as far as the game is still up, you can exit and rejoin without having your ratings deducted and i believe its fine because most players gets disconnected during games and they are able to rejoin back quickly without having their ratings deducted.There are some situation that wouldn't require a rating deduction considering your suggestion. Since the game is being hosted on the host's side i think once a host is disconnected , the other player gets disconnected too. I don't know if one day we can host games in the cloud , when host gets disconnected session is still alive for sometimes for it dies. But the merit system mentioned earlier by @user1 sounds like a plan to me
-
It's not impossible but there are certain things to be considered. The bot receives game reports from players when they submit a report using an IQ stanza and a payload containing a "gamereport" element. If only one player submits a report, the bot will still process the report and update the leaderboard and ratings for that player, but it won't be able to update the ratings for the other player as there is no game report from them. If the other player doesn't submit a report at all, the bot will not have any information about their performance in the game and will not be able to update their ratings. My question is, what if the host rather left the game?
If the host leaves the game before it ends, the game will be considered as a draw and no ratings will be awarded to any player. If the host leaves after the game has ended, it is likely that the game report will not be submitted to the bot, and in that case, the bot will not receive any information about the game and will not update the ratings of any player. Considering the host as a winner in a 1v1 after the opponent left the game for a certain number of minutes or hours (depending) is possible and can be easily done, but in a case where the host rather left, how do we handle that since there isn't any info submitted to the bot
-
just checked doesn't show sword to me, does the pointer shows sword to anyone else?
-
7 hours ago, 0facts said:
Oh, you came here for facts' civ#4? Bad news, this isn't that. Good news, I have a better suggestion.
We have 14 civs. Which is a good number (can be better with my 3 new civs).
But you know what we actually need more of?
0 A.D
My suggestion - *hold your breath* 0AD 2.
We need 2 0ADs.
I might have actually outdone myself (No, I don't want an Oscar, Grammy or Nobel Prize, my contributions are solely for the betterment of society)
This new 0AD will have no new features (Development community needs rest). It is meant to split the player base and cause madness and confusion.
Buahahahahahaha I am mad scientist! Chaos! Conquer!
cheers,
facts (oh facts)
P.S: Maybe look into 3 0ADs?
i agree.
-
1
-
Toxic Player - DoctorOrgans
in General Discussion
Posted
Hey @e.v action was taken by a moderator, thanks for the report