vinme

how about keep old rating, but add new one also, have a toggle for showing, one the other or both.

idk id feel sad about that, many historical players who left are still on rating board, and since the ratings are inflating, like you had to be 1500+ several years ago to be on the board, while rn you have to be 1700, let them stay on id say.

ahahahaha ok just tell me when you die and ill update the wording. its easy, consistent players know, as they play vs variety of players, see win/loss rate, and acertain own level, as well as relative levels.

how do i do what? best player has a rating, thats valihrant. if you are using google translate to post messages, i suggest you stop it doesnt work, very confusing to figure out if at all possible.

It was berhudar, this isnt up for debate, feel free to ask him yourself, i havent seen him lie so far, he will generally just stay silent when he wants to lie, not answering the question to retain a level of illusory honesty.

I could care less about the initial plan or intention for the rating system of 0ad, trying to point out the dichotomy between it and the current state of the ratings is utterly irrelevant. "cancels all of them"? i dont know what that means but i can say there is a huge difference in skill of an average 1500 and an average 1700. I can, and have, as many others have also ,foudn the "threshold" for beginner, med, pro. depends on what the goal of the categorizations is, but id say in terms of compettetive play, 1300-1500 is beginner, 1500-1800 is mid, and 1800+ is pro. those 3 leagues are significantly different in performance. I find it imperative to ask ratings before allowing people to play in a tg im hosting(if i have options), i do make exceptions but when i do purely out of despration or indiffernece, i find i regret it every time. Its very useful to separate people on 1300 level, its too unpredictable for balancing purposes, to let lower than 1300s play, game is usually one sided, they cant comprehend mere basics, it is most of the time bothersome. Tgs and 1v1s are almost exactly the same, in performance demand, a good 1v1 player will always be a good tg player, and vice versa. we currently balance tgs based on ratings ALWAYS, everybody does it, it is the only way, there is no other way to balance whatsoever,what you are saying, its just blatantly false. "my main problem is not really its innacuracy if we have all considered 0ad as just a good and fun game." ? what does this mean? The innacuracy of the rating system justifies and amplifies the EGO mess? i think removing it causes more of an ego mess, than ppl arguing "im real 1800, you are not real 1800" etc. complete ambiguity of ranking onyl causes noobs to think they are remotely in the same league as good players, as far as im concerned thats the primary driving factor of hostility against the rating system, or atttempts to strawman its legitimacy, try to discredit it. I dont think any rating system will solve EGO mess, its just human nature. Yeah i dont understand last part either, just gives me vibes of if someone told chatgpt to write like he was a moralist having a stroke. cared for politeness and privacy over what exactly? what do you think is the subject topic or the motive of the post? i never provided one, was just confused over the angry reaction of berhudar over a reasonable demand.

not wrong, completely true, you need to focus on utility as the qualitative metric for the legitimacy of a definition. he literally played with defcon 2 min later, and defcon said berhudar was mad at me. you take the definitions literally, intead of considering intent or utility and therefore twist reality. for example: "if account is shared, then none of the users of the account can be directly linked to the accounts name." Yes im sure he could've shared his accounts passwords, but its clear as day, when you are playing berhudar, vs somebody else, as theyd make mistakes he wouldnt, and ive never played him in rated 1v1 that i recall, when it wasnt the original berhudar. There are very few players that are 2000+ in skill right now, that one could count on one hand, 2 of them are afk(feld and vali), borg and i dont do smurfs/alts its impossible to hide identity pretty much. Its obvious, MOST of the time when that account is being used, its berhudar, not someone else using his account. If he had allowed someone else to play on those accounts, rated, for any reasonable amount of times, hed never get 2200 and likely not even 2000 as the other player would lose too much points. Honestly your whole argument is a non starter as far as im concerned and comes off more as a desprate legal defense obsessing over misintrepretation of semantics to fit the agenda and obsession over minute technicalities than a genuine opinion. Clearly he cares about points more than i do, as an example i dont play anyone below 1800 rated, while he does.

Completely and utterly irrelevant whether the creator of the account shares the password and whether others play on it on occasion. Fact of the matter is he heavily played with that account, acrued points/wins on that account against other players, got rating. The name is directly linked to a person, as its been established and is now commonly known forawhile.

Highest rated account is real one as far as im concerned, AND we, even you, are calling him "berhudar" not "felixix" ie "if any of BERHUDARS accounts".

clearly rating itself is a mere tool for keeping track of compettition results and aproximating skill. there are people with a mod that changes rating appearance, like 4000, 2800, etc but no one respects the "number" like that, or people who farm lower rateds, and are shown 1800, but are 1400 at best. Or christopher who is 2047 for 10 years, and no one seriously thinks he anywhere above 1800, if even that.

why play 0ad? it gives you money? why try to win in TGs or 1v1s? does it give you money? just have fun building a pretty city with 50 farms behind it to make it more realistic and to scale.

Rating can be THE BEST method of measuring skill that we currently have, if you take it in context. 1.First of all, 0ad is a very small community, every consistent and experienced player 1500+ knows most other players of that rating or higher, either second hand or first hand. 2.The fake rating people, easily get revealed and disregarded, as exceptions, not to the rule, as they faked the rating. Smurfs get revealed easily, but as they dont have their actual rating you have to estimate. 3.And as for team game only players, they dont play 1v1s, so how can their rating be accurate? you cant blame the rating system for this, i for one would suggest time based rating as a form of controlling for it, making a rating illegitimate if som1 hasnt played a 1v1 inawhile, but i digress. 4.Pretty sure fubar is that guy that only plays weird maps and never participates in anything else, idk much about him, perhaps his rating is faked through multiple accounts. Doctor is a significantly better player than reza. team games are completely irrelevant in acertaining ones skill because only 12.5% of variables is based on you, as well as non balanced maps, cooperation variation, and much much more. 5.local rating is pretty much useless from my understanding, but im not well versed in it, wont get into that. 6.Rating system very accurately reflects a players skill, or more so win/loss potential against other players, if the player actively plays 1v1 vs others of similar rating to him, and if he doesnt fake it artificially either by farming lower rated players, or by multiple account rating siphon. 7. i dont care about the rule, i just dont play if the player breaches contract, not that its a particularly relevant thing to me, but even mild relevance warrants action, i have nothing to lose, im not the one causing the problem why play a 2200 on an account that has 2000 points, if its a rated game, on a high level id like to play the main account. 8. Relevance of rating system comes from players who give it relevance through adhering to it or valuing it. Unskilled players often like to delegitimize the rating system as a way to make themselves feel better "im good at tg" , etc. skill in 1v1 directly translates to tg, theres very little one needs to understand to play tg thats not effective in 1v1 but its convenient to convolute the signficance. 9.The rating system is just a useful tool to keep track of our history of wins/losses, even adjusted by significance via the opponents relative level to us. its quite effective, therefore, as much as, ones performance history is indicative of ones future potential that is. 10.If one doesnt care about rating, they would never choose to play rated games, or why make smurfs? why refuse to play with original account? Rule doesnt have to be enforced by some third party authority, its not a rule for the sake of itself, it has utility for compettetive purposes.

what is defcon going to do? O_O

Its not anybodys responsibility to be nice. I was perfectly respectful and reasonable, that is all that is required. I do find it insulting to demand of me or of anyone active expression of friendliness or prioritization of someones potential feelings. insinutating its a transgression not to so do, and i do find people who do so not respectable.

let him? this is a 1v1. you word it as if this is some privilige im withholding from him for no reason at all. I have full right to play whoever i want, and most importantly, no one has the right to even remotely insinuate me not playing someone for ANY reason, even if i just feel like it is a transgression in any interpretation. So you dont get to be the arbiter of my reasonings legitimacy.

had*

its not that kind of "cell"s yeka

Some say, perhaps too op? Devs are discussing how to nerf me, but they cant figure it out.

theres always some conspiracy on who is whose alt, i myself get like 5 of those a week ahahaha

Dunedan, legendary player, online more than everyone, but plays less than anyone, probably once a year ahahaha

if i really wanted to, to bother putting enough effort, ie several minutes tops, i could now join ANYONE and have ANYONE join me, so its not a life ending issue, but only becuase i figured out the aforementioned method, with additon of turning off/on the STUN marker as a hosting option(which i have no clue what it means, altho people have explained to me many times) this method which i have no idea why it works, but i do know it works for sure. Im sure this can be a huge problem, and is a huge problem for many people in lobby as players struggle all the time with this join issue, thats why i posted this method, which maybe reduces 90-95% of the issues signiifcance. it is quite annoying when im trying to join a TG host and i have to try join 20 times, ie 20X5 sec ie 1.5 min aprox, and evne tho it was at 1/8 players when i started trying, by time i join, its filled and im unable to play, needing to wait 40 more min, but i try to host as often as possible now, to avoid that ahaha.

ddos also multiplayer numbers are all that matter to me, i dont care for single player, as far as im concerned they are playing a completely different game. its pointless to conflate the 2 or put them together as a single variable, in the context of this post it is totally self evident that ddosing would in no way affect non MP player so i dont see point of bringing it up, as its not a retort to the huge problem of ddosing that had when it would become more prevalent, caused many players to leave or rarely play. im pretty certain multiplayer players can in no way compensate with single player gameplay, if they keep getting ddosed, so its not like multiplayer players are migrating to single player. I dont have the dates, rates, etc, over past 4 years, of ddos prevalence, i just have my experience as i had played and saw lack of activity directly matching ddos activity numerous times. I agree, only practical solution is hiding the games in progress, through some means. even hiding names, and controlling spec joins can work just fine. No, you wont always have the issue of beign ddosed as ddosing hedges on targetting specifically while playing.

Must be careful adding mechanics that in such a severe way completely transform the game. Balancing it would be near impossible, this would add to the game variability/luck relevance increase. hard to strike a balance of not completely breaking the game/ruining it with transformative additions vs not keeping it dull and repettetive, and adding new mechanics. Overall, def any significant change should get tested for a month or 2 at the very least, in community mod, not by new version test version "testers" as 95% or more of players are not gonna participate in that.

this was 6 month ago, i dont remember anything about this post