Jump to content


Community Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by sil-vous-plait

  1. Ah of course, thank you! Sorry I thought this was some bespoke thing (after I went searching for experiences with "M1" on the forums).
  2. Hi @Stan, does a similar thing exist for A26?
  3. cheers team, problem solved
  4. there was no muting/kicking for this, 15 mins later but I got muted for saying "sh*t" within seconds... how again is this not broken?
  5. but hey, at least no one can say "sh*t" in the lobby....
  6. it appears to me online "competitive" players always jump on whatever bandwagon emerges from minuscule unbalanced advantages across versions (i.e. sling/ram in a23, archers in a24, what appears to be merc cav in a25), so maybe it's overstated how homogenous things need to be...there will always be some lever to manipulate, so to speak
  7. (might be too obscure, or just particular to my ocd...)
  8. ah okay, that makes sense! yeah: it caught my attention especially when spectating a match and each civ started with a different number (7-10 mostly)
  9. ...and that's the last time I'll spell out how to improve (at worst) and fix (at best) the online multiplayer experience of your game.
  10. This is such a failed metaphor: if there was an entity responsible for constructing a building explicitly for public/community use (consisting of planning, permission, actual builders, plumbers, electricity, etc.) and the principal entrance had a security or accessibility flaw, I would take it up with the entity, yes. I wouldn't go to the plumber, no, but the entity as a whole. If they only had plumbers on their team while supplying electricity to the building I would consider that a reflection on them. Now imagine the entity saying "Well we don't have anyone who figures out security or accessible access, don't look at us! If you think it's a problem either come fix it yourself or build your own building!" If anything—if I were to subscribe to your metaphor—you're just making the case + further solidifying the fact that there needs to be more moderators (electricians, as you would say) and/or some kind of better system put in place—as detailed extensively above. There are two things happening: one is whether or not you think it's an issue that needs solving—which I have yet to see explicitly stated by anyone, if anything the opposite—and another is (and the transparency is appreciated) whether or not it is feasible for the team to do.
  11. fair enough, I guess I'm just surprised something like preventing obvious racial slurs in usernames would have been a little higher on the list than *checks notes* naturally realistic sounds of animals dying when they're hunted, or, modeling/skinning the historically accurate dress of the Gauls TLDR: whatever, I don't care that much (it's not my game) and I tried. I'm happy to ignore it, always have (lol what other choice is there?), just a shame how it reflects on the game and community. at least this will serve as a record when (hopefully) the game gains some more popularity/users and it doesn't benefit from the luxury of inaction (re: this topic) and large indifference at this point to be clear I'm focusing on usernames, as I understand why monitoring the lobby chat is another (slightly) more complex task. however seeing the response/rant of some user(s) above who are officially on the 0AD team makes it very clear why this isn't addressed—so again, whatever
  12. too busy to prevent the use of racial slurs in usernames, ok gotcha
  13. at the end of the day my question is still: is this not a concern of WFG? if so what plans are there to address it? I do agree with what's said via mods etc etc but it still strikes me as odd that this is getting treated as something extra, as if it's not a foundational concern of the game/multiplayer experience
  14. apologies for double post, but @Stan` is this the sort of thing that would best be addressed by submitting a proposal to https://code.wildfiregames.com? for example: allow players a personal "mute" list, or implement community-elected moderators for online lobby, etc, etc? just remembering some takeaways from other A23 vs. A24 threads and recalling that this is a possible mechanism. to my mind it's a relatively common sense thing that shouldn't need a community-based proposal to implement (but instead should come from WFG), but also wondering if the realities of how things get done dictate a different approach
  15. re: "controlling that," I think community-level moderation (i.e. not only left to WFG, especially if they are short handed) is one possibility. I think this also supersedes the need to block particular words, which as pointed out above is A. a huge task and B. will be circumvented anyways. with that said I do still find it shocking that the 0AD online name registration system allows this stuff—to me that is beyond/distinct from any kind of "What's actually possible to moderate" conversation and actually just "Multiplayer Game Development 101" stuff, I was so surprised this was overlooked. letting anyone register any name seems like something you'd find in a list of "5 things not to do when making an online game." duplicate accounts and rankings seem to be policed more than racial slurs in usernames. this was basically the gist of the reasoning behind this thread: I think the game/community would benefit from some increased ability to maintain the multiplayer games + lobby in this way, where as the current method of some elementary level bad words being singled out for automatic muting isn't really covering these sorts of scenarios. most of it seems like such an easy thing to implement, and while I honestly have not been around for anywhere near the lifespan of this game I'm surprised it's only being looked at in its 25th iteration?
  16. yeah even a blocking feature would maybe be better than arriving at a blacklist of words, although I think without too much debate there is a small list of words (which frequently appear as usernames and/or in the lobby chat) that could easily be blocked. anyone opposed to that is either sympathetic or fronting for something (if only wanting to be edgy) I don't actually mind that much—ignoring bigots is so easy—it just seems a shame that the lobby is frequently filled with this garbage when it would be so easy to take out the trash. you can hang around for an hour or so and catch some ethnic cleansing rants easily. maybe give the ability of a few trusted players to mute for this stuff/kick people—why does that only have to be in the hands of WFG? we inhabit the lobby, give us the ability to care for it to people suggesting reporting to @user1, that seems too manual of a task and I can only imagine they have enough on their plate with the "report quitters" thread (also judging by the fact I haven't seen them chime in or address this 3 month-old thread)
  17. @user1 maybe a fix for A25? still unsure why saying "I played @#$% that match" gets you muted/kicked yet a literal player named nazi exists and is online as I write this (amongst other ethno nationalist garbage in the lobby chat)
  18. I see what you mean: understood. I agree with what you're saying, too, I haven't hosted a game in a long time, nor have I played with anyone unknown to me (aka not a DDOSer, as far as I can tell), so I think from one of those instances months ago when I used to host someone wrote down my IP and is now using it. A DDOSer attacking my IP directly wouldn't appear in the mainlog, though, right?
  19. searched for "Xmpp" and didn't see anything, also unsure what it would reveal anyways...it was definitely DDOS, as evidenced in depth by several others in various threads as of late
  20. unplayable tonight, around 6-8 games ruined by DDOS in a row over the course of an hour or so, we all finally just left for good edit: several of these were in locked games
  • Create New...