ffm2

A direct way down and up to replay pallas would be the best in long term. Up: In bulk and with some save rails (e.g. no games under 4 min., no special setups for test with unlimited resources). Down: In bulk, also with conditions (of players where I lack replays). The current zip way over the web interface is limited AFAIK in the number of games and the user would select these games by hand currently. What I described here was more peer to peer and easier to mod. A "share replays mod" could look like this: In the lobby one could have a new button "share replays" next to the others (host game, join game). Instead of the normal game setup one would have the normal setup chat, no game/map setup, but conditions of the games one would like to share. E.g. 4vs4, 3vs3, over 4 minutes etc.. With mod setting "incompatible" and only buddys able to join. That way RangerK and I could sync our data bases without wfg beeing involved (except of the game displayed in the lobby). Both would benefit the LocalRatings mod

Seems sensible. I don't have too much time now and won't have so soon. But I had a idea of using the game setup chat to share results. This way one can get faster to a bigger data base. During the transmission one would spam the chat window one time with a big wall of text. So there may be some guard rails necessary against abuse, but then again any user can spam the chat. So as I imagine it the broadcast would look something like this: ffm: [LoacalRatings V0.28] Sharing my game results for team games: Date Time (UTC+0) | Winnerteam | Loserteam 26.09.2026 20:00 | ffm(maur), a(iber), b(gaul), c(gaul) | d(gaul), e(gaul), f(gaul), g(gaul) This data could then be separately saved and in doubt deleted if you believe someone gave false data or someone had weird settings. Just as a sketch. A downside could be that users snitch on other users how often they play, I don't know if that makes some uncomfortable. This data is already shared via the replays but to a smaller extend. I guess best would be not to share your gamer nick with your boss. Edit: Actually this way whole replays could be transmitted. Don't know if one should. Maybe a new mod, share replays would be better. Host a game in the lobby for that purpose in the lobby, let some join that you want to share with and synchronize your data bases.

It's fixed for noobs. You can just hold H and then the cav just makes some jerking movements and stays. But don't tell anyone. In this clip I was able to prevent a group from attacking by placing a foundation under them. This should be fixed imo. foundation_attack.mp4 There is also the possibility via a mod to place a lot of foundations near a fight. Each foundation could tank a arrow and cost nothing if not build. Would be very obvious to see though.

I think a lot goes against the current gameplay. The diaspora from the market gets shortcut. It is possible with a workaround: The enemy can capture buildings in one players territory. The ally could capture it back and have a small territory to start from. This is a very useful, rare and fun mechanic. I like it in this form as it is. This way, as a team, one can have more dense towers. This may result in the border player placing their fields at the pocket player and the pocket player placing their military buildings at the border player. The current movement mechanic gets disturbed. The civilians wouldn't need to flee back and the military from the pocket would already be at the front. Making attack timing very different (worse). But what I'd like: If you could just place a building foundation at the ally from your cost, it belongs to your ally and (maybe) is of his civilization. Often times a player gets attacked always from one flank and he wouldn't place a tower there. Then one sends them the resources and he could build it. Same for barracks, forts etc..

Just get it from the last site of:

It's fixed for noobs. You can just hold H and then the cav just makes some jerking movements and stays. But don't tell anyone.

Yeah, or at the end of the game a upload button. To avoid spam of re-host of games with wrong settings and some sanity checks of game duration, full replay, duplicate uploads etc..

Yeah, that was the thing. As I understand it wfg can't just let any bots run on the lobby. Uff was honest about his bot, but it wasn't approved (yet). I can understand that some boundaries have to be set e.g. to avoid adds, spam etc.. But I liked uffs host. I can also understand that it is not so attractive for a developer to have everything approved of the ideas one wants to try out. For me, I would appreciate such a host in combination with a fast automated pairing system like the LocalRatings Team-Balancer Mod. The hoster could build up a better database than I could by only manually spectating and playing games. This way one could also experiment more with parameters of the pairing system.

A absolute score sounds like a nightmare. You have a competitive game going on with armies clashing and suddenly it ends because one team has score X and the other maybe 100 points less. I got a relative score as a announcement in the oddity detector that tells you when it's time to resign. As clear victory condition would be also good. First I had the scores too announced. Some felt it were disclosing information. Although I see no real game play affecting change, I removed the score announcement. Besides it only tells you when it is time to resign. There is rarely a draw but still too many games dragging on unnecessary long because the players refuse or don't understand when it is time to resign.

Thanks, that is better. Although I like the a attack where one could capture a barrack and place a cc foundation in the decaying territory within a full developed city.

IMO nomad games are even earlier broken by too near set CCs. The barracks are just one hack. Too often 2 ccs foundations are set too near without intention. The barrack hack is then often executed with the help of team mates that sponsor the early barrack. A minimum radius between cc foundations would be a cleaner solution. Even without barrack hack too close CCs ruin games early on. Another interesting thing is this capture doesn't respect the ceasefire but captures even during it. Noteworthy other mention: CC denial through units on the foundation. If one is lucky, one can put their cavalry on the enemy foundation during ceasefire and the enemy can't start their foundation because the cavalry won't move.

In general, I have a bad feeling about this feature if applied globally. This depreciates formations even more (not that I'm a fan of it) as all will be as slow as the slowest unit. At first thought I could see this for fanatics or camp cav. Or with a general speed floor of the speed of infantry. So infantry won't be affected at all. But on second thought, if you think about the micro battle with a few cavalry at the start, this depreciates retreating. Since when you retreat, you know the few wounded will fall behind and fall prey of the remaining army. I think this will be the biggest effect. That on all spots loose single soldiers can get taken out easy. I also don't think more incentives for healers should be implemented. The ranking and cost saving is already incentive enough. They are a complementary unit for when the game play allows it. But not a necessity.

thanks for the link. Good site, but a bit weird that one makes such a detailed site and it's only linked in the forum by a third party randomly in the middle of the tournament... At least for non-discord users. For me it is annoying to cycle through multiple sites and see if on any of them is any news. Forums, git-sites, social media sites, email, messengers .. all after work. So I'd rather not add another site. I'm not asking for some special treatment, only want to share my view on it.

Update on the LR_Teambalancer: Removed the game setup page .xml including the buttons to balance the teams and evaluate the current teams. The new popular mod extraplayers overrides it. Commands in the game setup: /balance /evaluate /rate playername 2000 Also to clarify a common confusion: The teams are paired by the conservative rating e.g. 1800 - 400 = 1400 The winning estimation is calculated by the raw rating e.g. 1800 Might be confusing, but my attempt to simplify it wasn't better (e.g. using only conservative). Also if @Mentula doesn't like me to hijack the thread, just say if I should detach or so. IMO it belongs here best. LocalRatings_Teambalancer.zip

Updated for R28. Most notable change: Game decided announcement.

Farming is best until population becomes a limiting factor. Then comes corals, then ice houses.

I think the balance is fine. Spears are strong, but need to close the distance first. Swords are in general worse that spear or jav. Their strength is their fast attack rate to mow down civilians. But they need to run away from anyone with near equal numbers. On Athens: It's a bit skewed anyway atm. since usually champ cavalry and naked fanatics are usually banned from games. Athens have neither and can shine with the other strengths they have. I don't think its so much unfair how they rank up if you compare it to e.g. elephant archers ranking up. SDL2 really has some issues. Most notably the common complete click bug (fix: ctrl+shift + a few left - right clicks). I tried to play with recording the screen with "screenkey" and "key-mon" but the few times I tested I couldn't replicate it. I am convinced some key inputs aren't reliably processed. This results in some players repeating the H hold key - which results in the units first attacking the nearby unit, but on the next H aborting the current attack and starting a new one. But if you only press it once, there's still a bit of doubt if it actually registered. The unequal heros was once discussed here (one version ago though):

That was my point. I agree that different maps increase complexity.

Really nice ideas! Player notes also, good idea, so one could mark if some players always lag when you host. Or if they don't share your kind of humor or so. In favor of always mainland: The thing is one could play each day some completely different sport, one day basketball, next day tennis. But when you stick to one you (and your team) can explore more nuanced gameplay. And it's already hard enough to find 8 players that can play mainland circle. I would be more in favor of leaving biome random + no shared vision but that's unpopular and I can play without. And with some limited time, to get a gg in mainland is good enough instead of exploring different maps. Although I started the game just playing one map after the other in single player until I joined the lobby.

We played Ardennes Forest with grouped lines and 8 players. My CC got generated on a hill, unreachable from the downside. I could ungarrision downhill and rebuild. Was a fun challenge, check the replay, but it should be fixed. commands.txt

Agree with manowar. But quitting the game is also a option. It's just a waste of time that can be spend else where when one is frustrated. Muting with autociv helps a bit. In lichess you can disable the chat completely and just get paired up in a game with some random persons. 0 a.d. is not so important.

The games where one can make a comeback out of a very dire situation also have sweetest victory. Maybe it could be a announcement when a threshold of score dis-balance is reached in the game in the oddity detector mod if I revive it. Since your leaving (or atm. feel that way), I'd like to shine on a game where diagonalo had the fastest boom in R28, multiplayer that I attended by min. 13 going by the most resources spend. And all with just 2 extra apple trees in your base. The trick was to reach 2 berry spots far out of base with barracks. This game also made me question this metric a bit, because I was maur and going for the hero Chanakya before doing the military techs. This reduces the tech costs by -20%. And this kind of shortcut isn't reflected in this metric at all. But anyway gg commands.txt

Since so many TGs end without all 4 players resigning I made a classifier for my version of the local ratings mod. This could be made to be used as a victory condition. I am getting also annoyed by mates that resign too early. But some games are already decided long ago and if there is a huge dis-balance in the score and population one could already call it a gg: So for a clear victory condition one could set the score factor to 1.2 and population to 1.8 or so. Just as a suggestion for the game or a mod. I don't have time and the desire to code atm.

What do you mean? Implemented but not shown? I can't see it anywhere in the web page. Is it also a team Glicko-2 version? Edit: Ah! Found it at the player site, when you click on a player

We have the LocalRatings Page already: Which has no minimum required games problem. I have written about my criticism of LocalRatings in the mod thread and provided 2 other rating systems in the LocalRatings Mod. Glicko-2 and OpenSkill (or one variant of them). One can list the players by their rating. Atm. I prefer OpenSkill. The ratings are currently mostly taken by games that are balanced by vibe. For the rating to be more accurate one would need a few more automatic paired games by their ratings. E.g. in this game a team with a total rating of 7000 wins vs. a team with 5000. Yet again Decger stacks up more wins and Havran more losses. For a accurate rating win - loss should be the same. So in this example Decger should get players with low rating until he stacks up some losses. It is a bit hard though to convince the players to just accept the pairing, since there is currently already some drift in my database. This already got a bit better imo but I still need to convince the players to accept these teams.