smiley

The point isn't about picking sides. Its more "does this warrant a FOSS game breaking conventions to do something unprecedented solely based on recency bias?". Especially when its going to stick forever. Why exactly does current events make it necessary to break a long running theme? Since the discussion is about names and justification of why said names either are valid or invalid, I would think its relevant here. The thread is after all, name suggestions. Zelensky is a suggestion and the discussion is about how appropriate it would be.

This entire conflict is about where NATO gets to draw it's border. Which is also why every other country in it has committed to keeping boots off the ground and not being directly involved. What exactly am I underestimating here? Nuclear war? Who will risk nuclear war over Ukraine? This has been seen coming since 2014. The motive is clear. Two nuclear states have been fighting over territory for years already. It escalated into airstrikes and guns being fired across the border just recently in 2019. Truthfully, I am more worried about that because the fate of the world is on two nations who hate each other held back just by mutually assured destruction. This has been the closest situation to a nuclear war ever since Cuban missile crisis. And just to mix it up, let's get China and their arsenal in there too so we get the full Asian experience. We didn't do anything then and we shouldn't do anything now. Seems like you are underestimating what has been going on already. So what exactly am I missing here?

That's all well and good, but there have been numerous massacres, conflicts and human suffering within recent memory even if they don't exactly dominate the news. What's the criteria for being mentioned in the title? Rockets literally fly into hospitals and apartments annually on the West Bank. Anyone still remembers Yemen and Syria? Whatever happened in Myanmar? What has Columbia gone through? The list is so long it's @#$%ing depressing. Suffering does not discount suffering. But acknowledging one while ignoring everything else, is doing the same, especially when more people have died and are dying elsewhere. I propose maintaining the status quo just like we have done so in the past with wars and conflicts that have had much more casualties.

It's a well known reference. If you are thinking of hosting it on your own PC, I would suggest to not do it.

(setup your own lobby server. with blackjack and hookers)

Among Us apparently.

This guy belongs wherever you put camelius. In fact, thats probably where barca is too tbh. There was also a vercingetorix at top3 some point. If I am remembering the same Franksy, they hovered at the "pretty good" category. Somewhere below all time top player list of yours. I literally don't even know who #4 is.

Is it though?

Its honestly extremely weird, for me at least, that people care so much about such useless little details. Why is your ego so tied to this game that you cannot seem to digest the fact when a seemingly new player turned out to be better than you thought. Its not a big deal. Just because "DefinetlyNotExperienced (1278)" beat you who is 1900, doesn't take anything away from you. Next time, just consider that they are underrated. We should also ban players who refuse to play rated 1v1 games because their rating points are also not accurate. There were several 1200s who played in the "top lobbies" during alpha 21-22 and I am sure they still do. It seems like the arguments contradict each other. At one point it was said that rating number doesn't matter because you know how strong a player is. Well, new accounts also operate under hidden skill only once. I would assume that much like how no one thought faction2 was actually 1200, people would also notice that "DefinetlyNotExperienced (1278)" is also not 1278. Seems like this is a non-problem being hyped up because certain people are too much offended when losing to a mysterious nickname. Maybe just throw out elo and have average APM + Score Growth Rate or something as your lobby rating if true to skill evaluation is actually needed. This is why ELO is provisional and starts at median for new players. On Lichess for a new account, you will get close to your true rating in 3 or so games. Provisional ratings do not take into account odds to make it fair for established players while also being marked with a question mark to indicate to your opponent that your rating does not actually reflect actual skill level. And they also don't care about new accounts, so there is more than one difference. In fact, I have no clue why the lobby ELO doesn't implement this, because its pretty much necessary because without it, a 1200 can knock off 100 points from a 1900+ as you said. Or maybe it does and the parameters are just bad. Ratings are not supposed to stabilize if players keep upsetting while their rating is provisional. I like how online chess operates, somehow they don't need you to stick to one account for the pool to remain fair for everybody else. But like I said, I suspect its more because people's ego just can't take the loss from a snarky enigma. To be fair, the player base here is actually too small to not get emotionally invested into it. When playing chess, I can just rage after losing to someone 100 points below me for 30 seconds and press find new opponent.

None of these platforms try to force one account per one physical person and their terms of service doesn't prohibit it either. In fact, its extremely rare for even games to have an actual restriction of the sort. Even for games that actively prohibit smurfing, its not under a one account per legal person clause, but a more specific "boosting" clause. Usually its just one account per license in commercial games. There is also an incentive to not limit the accounts. Ironically, the registration terms of this very forum doesn't prohibit multiple accounts.

Unfortunately sad face is no more. Literally none of the characters in sad face is allowed anymore. elexis deleted the account because I forgot the password to recreate it and the name was no longer valid. I used not so sad smiley account and got banned for multiple accounts IIRC. Who knows... I visited the lobby once in 2020 or something, and most people I played with were also gone. Even that nub barca is no where to be seen. ggs from sad face.

Don't think its fixable. You cannot join games if the nick is not the "canonical". But I recall there being an option to disable authentication with the STUN thing on game host. But I also recall that being removed because not having it was deemed bad.

Yes, when I played, the lobby authentication stuff for games was not there. That feature also killed the ability to replace players who dropped. It goes against the XMPP standard by trying to identify accounts with the nickname. Also, its extremely overkill to have XMPP be the lobby chat server when almost all of the standard is unused. There is an extension that could be used to list games, but that is of course unused. https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0060.html

In the context mentioned, it was a non 0ad XMPP client. I think the only solution is to use the identifier part of the JID. But as I recall, the lobby now uses anonymous JIDs.

You can /nick in the lobby. The command isn't available in the chat of course, but you can open the console and run `Engine.LobbySetNick("new_name")` which would change the nickname. You can nick to the same name with an invisible character added and you could impersonate someone while they are on the same chat. I have seen this happen on the lobby, so its very much possible. Regardless, since JIDs are not displayed, only nicks are, and since XMPP doesn't consider nicks identifiable, its a builtin feature of the lobby to be able to impersonate people. Its entirely possible to nick to the exact same name of someone offline.

The smurf rule is actually dumb, so I agree with you on that. Preventing new accounts is an overstep. There is no reason for forcing people players into the same identity. I literally quit the whole game after being banned several times even though the identity was not even a mystery. Which also resulted in me deleting a forum account and also causing irreparable damage with relations here. So, you know, pick your poison I guess. Either don't smurf or don't play.

I am pretty sure that was his rating in A21 as well. So if this bug is recent, probably not impacted.

It helps with local repository size as blobs are not tracked with all their history. Its not an issue if you shallow clone (you probably should, if you have to blame that far back, just use the web interface). Build output should not be committed, CI artifacts would do. I am not sure whats the solution for people who want to be up to date with every change while also not downloading all those unchanged DLLs. Perhaps,https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/65460-0-ads-focus-on-balance-has-crippled-its-design/?do=findComment&comment=470537 is the solution. Such users are not really interested in the history usually, just need up-to-date binaries.

No concrete numbers as most game devs are proprietary, but there are small scale surveys done on gamedev forums and those two are almost always at the top (Perforce and its not even close). Perhaps. I think Plastic paid Unity though. But from anecdotal evidence I have heard, Perforce does a better job with large binaries.

<offtopic> Game development is rarely done on Git. Plastic and Perforce are the dominant two systems. IIRC, even SVN is more popular than Git. Most major third party engines don't even have integrated support for Git. The biggest difference is that 0AD uses a dedicated engine which makes either option undesirable as there are a lot of code too. </offtopic>

There was also an idea floating around sometime on this forum to allow for civ branching with phases. You start as Mycenaean, and get more specific with phases or something. I believe the actual example was the Roman Kingdom, Roman Republic and the Roman Empire. The problem is that you can't easily get balanced linear progression for all civs, but maybe that's not a problem.

The theme isn't rome-centric. The main consideration is being notable during the Bronze Age I guess. Narrowing that down to empires with roads that led to Rome cuts out a whole portion of ancient history. Disclaimer, I am not literally using the Rome metaphor. The point being that the current "theme" is the classic sets of civilizations around the Mediterranean and their outreach.

This is partially because balancing changes usually die on phabricator if it's not already accepted here. However, most balancing changes proposed here or as patches are subjective opinions. If you provide objective values with the changes, the likelihood of it being committed goes up exponentially. Rather than saying slinger attack rate is too high, maybe provide a chart of DPS or something so it's obvious that slingers attack rate is indeed too high. If I was committing stuff, the latter would give me a whole lot more confidence to actually make the change. If something is supposedly overpowered, there would be numbers to quantify that. It's a whole lot more work, but we only need so much advisers, we need more contributors. For the more savvy, run nonvisual Petra tests on the same seed and match up civs maybe. Or hell, integrate such tests on CI too if they offer meaningful insights. As is, forum balance proposals are not doing anyone much good as they don't go anywhere far.

Before Alpha 23, there was weeks of testing over multiplayer with some of the best players of the time along with devs. There were 8 players who patched the game in between matches, so its entirely reasonable to assume that continuous play testing is very possible. Before Alpha 22, when Kushite was added, the same was also true for reference. I assume its still a thing because most of the same players still post on this forum and I assume they are around on the lobby too. Although, a dev who was also an active member of the multiplayer community isn't there now. He was the one who organized the svn matches at the time. There are no gameplay developers on the team. There are a bunch of programmers who quite frankly don't have to tweak attack stats. Maybe, that's the solution here. Get someone whose task is to actually conceive new gameplay elements and tweak those stats. I am fairly certain that role has been vacated fairly recently relative to the project's lifetime. The same person should also optimally be an active player online who can organize svn matches by typing in the chat "svn teamgame in 10".

I don't think its going to be useless. I don't know what others think about its usefulness. Maybe someone else is willing to roll those dice.