Jump to content


Lobby Moderators
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Norse_Harold

  1. I see people asking for immediate release of a26 in the lobby. I don't recommend this. I have noticed that professional game developers avoid releasing updates near the weekend. This is wise because it gives time to release a subsequent hotfix in case game-breaking bugs are discovered post-release, something that has happened to even the best developers. It also gives time for server administrators and mod developers to update their areas of responsibility. And, we need to give Linux distribution maintainers time to update their packages of the game. The weekends are the peak gaming times. They are when the lobby has twice as many or more players compared to a weekday. Please don't release just before or during a weekend. However, making a new release candidate this evening would be fine, I think.
  2. TwainRick built this Wonder in the northwest corner of the Ambush map in alpha 0.0.25b. It resembles modern cantilevered architecture.
  3. Check the FAQ for ideas for troubleshooting it, especially the first 5 answers under the Multiplayer category. If none of those answers solves the problem then we need more information about the error message, preferably a screenshot of the error, and your system configuration in order to help you with troubleshooting it.
  4. Emperior, your post was primarily about lobby moderation, and it was off-topic in this thread. I requested that it be moved, along with the replies about lobby moderation, to the Lobby Help and Moderation thread. It's not "no reason". I think there's been a miscommunication or assumptions made. I haven't been here since 2017. I only started participating in 2021, and improvements to lobby moderation are happening slowly. Please be supportive instead of destructive. Yes, it's frustrating that things are slow. But, why be destructive and punitive at the exact time that things are improving? I'm on your side about the need to improve lobby moderation. Let's talk in a 0ad game or in IRC to correct the miscommunication.
  5. Guess what? The players should also be considered responsible for enforcing the rules. If they don't approve of certain conduct then they should be taking action in order to prevent that conduct. It starts with their own behavior. Two wrongs don't make a right. Players should not try to rationalize that their own disruptive behavior is okay because other regular players have certain disruptive behavior as well. Players, if you don't approve then punish the other players in a constructive way. Refuse to join their games unless they correct their behavior. Join hosts who have rules for their games. Apply rules to the games that you host. There are only a handful of hosters who have good connections, fast computers, correct port forwarding and correctly functioning firewalls. As a result, these hosters tend to be the most popular team game hosters. They could be considered "key terrain" for applying rules. But, if the disruptive players choose not to cooperate then they'll look for ways around the rules. The strategy should be prepared for this, and ideally split the non-disruptive "pro" players from the hardcore-stubborn-disruptive "pro" players. The hardcore disruptive players will just host their own games and step on each others' toes. Fine, let them do that, but don't step on the toes of players who want to get along and support everyone's fun. And, someday, the stubborn ones might choose to follow the rules in order to participate in some fun gameplay for everyone.
  6. As far as the particular list of rules to choose, I think it is good to start with a short list considering your goal of encouraging the "pro" players to be on board with following the rules and helping everyone have a good experience in the games that you host. But, if you want suggestions about what rules to include, take a look at what the professionals are doing. That's what I did when I chose the list of rules for the games that I host. I don't remember exactly where I found guidance on writing a code of conduct for gaming, but I think that AoE IV and my list of rules have some common source material, since our rules seem quite similar and were written within a few months of each other. AoE's rules seem to have been posted first, but I'm fairly sure that I used more generic guidance material. Blizzard's in-game code of conduct Age of Empires IV code of conduct Squad code of conduct
  7. Okay, on the one hand I think it's a good idea to start with a short set of rules if you want their adoption by "pro", potentially toxic players. On the other hand, you should be transparent with the complete list of rules that you intend to enforce, and also only enforce those rules that you have announced to the players. This way there won't be any surprises for the players or for yourself. It seems like you might have some unstated rules about smurf accounts and "other bad practices that are easier to control". If so, list them. But, you didn't list them because you want to start with a short list of rules for the "pro" players. Okay, good, but be consistent with your own rules! If at some point you find that you absolutely must add more rules then go ahead and do it. You can even announce it in-game at the moment that it's necessary, then adjust your list of rules on the forum. And, invite feedback, so that the rules have community input and are a cooperative effort to refine and follow. See the example of how I did this here.
  8. The games that I host typically involve intermediate level players. I think that applying rules to games involving "pro" players (meaning players who are the most skilled, currently active players in public games) has different challenges from applying rules to intermediate level games. There are some players who have chosen to conform to the rules while playing in my games, and there are some players who have chosen to simply not join my games. This is a good thing in my opinion, because then it's voluntary cooperation for those participating in the game. The players who have chosen to simply not join my games and continued with their disruptive and toxic behavior tend to be "pro" players, unfortunately. I think that they've been acting in an absence of rules for such a long period of time that they think it's normal. Something needs to be done, but you'll quickly find that trying to force players who potentially have psychological disorders to follow rules might have retaliatory reaction from them. I say don't force anything, just make games with rules and see who joins. If the pro/disruptive players don't join games that you host then don't force them to join (and therefore be subject to the rules). Some of the "pro" players have already been joining the games that I host and following the rules. Hopefully more of the "pro" players will voluntarily decide to follow rules and set an example for the others.
  9. Again, and again I see a post where the task is given to the hosts with little power. Yes, there are known players who are extremely toxic. I assume that you're referring to their conduct in-game as well as in the lobby. Since this thread is about in-game only I'll refer to that aspect only. The comments about lobby moderation were moved to the thread titled Lobby Help and Moderation, so the discussion about lobby rules can be continued on-topic there. "The services hosted by the players are moderated by those players. That is to say, each host moderates their own match." Hosters have kick and ban capability, so there's not "little power" that they have. But, many hosters ignore this power and don't take action. That is the real problem. So I applaud maxticatrix for implementing rules for his games. This is exactly what more hosters need to do.
  10. Not an accurate statement. Things have been done. There hasn't been a public announcement of what has been done until now. I think that more needs to be done, including the suggestions that I've made in the Lobby Help and Moderation thread, but several things have been done. The whole Lobby Help and Moderation thread represents something new from user1. He has finally described some of his plans to improve lobby moderation and what the responsibilities and guidance is for lobby helpers. The invitation to recruit more lobby helpers is something new. The recruitment of me as a lobby helper is something new. The correction of bugs with the !mute and !mutelist commands for lobby helpers is something new. As far as what the future holds, I don't know, I think there needs to be more communication about it, but in the correct threads.
  11. I think you should read everything, not half, not just my post but all of them. Yes, you have a few sentences at the end of your post about in-game conduct and rules. The solution is to split the comments into two separate posts and ensure that they are posted in the correct threads. But, I guess that you wanted to address maxticatrix directly since he's a lobby moderator. You can @ him in the Lobby Help and Moderation thread, though. I doubt that he's going away again after one post on the forum.
  12. Emperior, this thread is about in-game rules, not lobby rules. Can a forum mod move Emperior's post to the Lobby Help and Moderation thread, please?
  13. Which FAQ do you mean? The FAQ that's here, linked from the front page of the wiki. It would help the wiki updater(s) if we had a link to more details about why SDL is at fault and which version(s) are affected. For the wiki updater(s), the problem description can be something along the lines of, "mouse cursor jumps to a different monitor when scrolling the camera or map".
  14. There is a new borderless.fullscreen option in A26, you could try to set it to false. If it doesn't help then highly likely it's not the game issue (maybe SDL). I tried setting borderless.fullscreen to false, but it did not solve the problem. I then tested A25b on the same system. It turns out that the problem occurs in that version of 0ad on that system, as well. That system had SDL version 2.0.22 plus distribution modifications. It has been updated to SDL version 2.24. The problem does not seem to occur anymore. Can these be added to the FAQ, please? On another system where the problem did not occur, the version of SDL was version 2.0.14.
  15. Indeed. I've installed kush-extreme version 0.26.2 via the in-game interface. Thanks for developing this, and thanks to the WFG team for getting it signed. freyyja, TwainRick and I were able to easily beat 5 "Very Hard, Aggressive" vanilla bots that were using the Gauls civ in alpha 26 rc3, so the bots needed an increase in difficulty. A bot with "Hard" difficulty using kush-extreme is much more difficult. I was able to survive, but it took 24 minutes for me to obtain a battering ram. Maybe I'm not exploiting the bot's low intelligence enough by building diversionary structures, because the bot was wiping out most of my army with each attack. This is good, because it increases the skill ceiling of the bots. It kind of reminds me of Jebel Barkal, where the opposition Kushites civ ("Napata") has quite strong units at mid game, depending on difficulty setting. Is that part of the inspiration for the kushites-extreme mod?
  16. No, it's not what I'm saying. That sounds like a different issue from what I'm observing. What I'm saying is that the game captures the cursor every time I startup the game and/or toggle it to full screen mode. However, it doesn't always keep the cursor captured when the mouse is at the "junction" between two monitors. I'm not using Wayland for X rendering.
  17. Resolved: See the update at the end of this post for a description of how this problem was resolved. There is still a bug where the mouse jumps to a different monitor when scrolling the map. This didn't happen with alpha 0.0.25. Note that I've only tested the release candidates. Steps to reproduce: 1. Ensure that two monitors are connected to your Linux computer, one is 1920x1080, the other is 1280x1024 max resolution. 2. Determine where to move the mouse in order to cause the cursor to appear at the second monitor. Let's call this area the "junction" between the monitors. It's probably the left or right edge of the primary monitor. 3. Move the mouse cursor to the secondary monitor, configure that monitor as the "primary" monitor with an xrandr command that toggles the primary monitor. See the attached shell script for that xrandr command. 3. Start 0ad alpha 26, ensure that it is configured to full screen instead of windowed, begin a game simulation, move the mouse to the edge of the screen, at the "junction" between the monitors, in order to scroll the camera frame, also known as scrolling the map. Stop scrolling, then resume scrolling. Continue alternating this, perhaps also varying the speed that you move the mouse. Expected results: the camera frame scrolls. Actual results: usually the camera frame scrolls. Sometimes the cursor jumps to the other monitor and the camera frame stops scrolling. It's necessary to move the cursor back to the monitor where 0ad is displayed in order to regain the ability to scroll the camera frame. The problem is intermittent. I find that playing the game normally for about 10 minutes, scrolling at the junction occasionally, makes the problem evident. It may be possible to reproduce the symptoms with simpler steps. Update: The problem was caused by the SDL library version that I was using. It was fixed by changing the version of the SDL library that I had installed. Discussion here. set-primary-monitor.sh
  18. Binaries for Linux of these versions of 0ad are available, so compiling from source might not be necessary in this case. 0.0.26 rc3 (rev 27067) as Snap (change version to latest/beta) rev 27077 as AppImage rev 27087 as Snap (change version to latest/edge)
  19. You're right, banning leaked or "pwned" accounts is not the best way to solve the problem. However, it's the only way to maintain security and an effective reputation-based justice system until email addresses are collected, unless WFG wants to start using password reset questions and answers, but that has its own pitfalls such as easily guessed answers. It's impossible to ensure that the original account holder resets the password if the only requirement for resetting the password is the leaked password. Seems like another "legitimate interest" in collecting an email address, for GDPR compliance purposes, specifically for password reset capability. If Linux-loving libertarians think that collection of email addresses is so onerous, then consider making it optional and give incentives such as access to matches that are restricted to "verified" accounts only.
  20. Thanks, Dunedan. @smileyIt seems like you have rushed the process of reading through this thread. I don't know why you're so focused on anti-smurfing, because I'm not. Instead, I'm focused on preventing all player misconduct, including extreme verbal abuse, cheating, griefing, ddosing, etc., by making bans effective. Let's own the problem. Preventing smurfing, defined as unknown players who lie that their skill level is much lower than it actually is, can primarily be done by hosters. But, it is also necessary for lobby moderators to shut down compromised accounts so that a decentralized reputation-based justice system, which is to some extent already established by hosters, can be effective. I don't get this point. What difference does this have from just regular smurfing which is so frowned upon? And if users know the verified account, how does it help with avoiding targeting? Either the actual identity is known, or its not. Okay, let's get this straight. First, I assume that when you use the word "smurfing" you're talking about "duplicate accounts" instead of smurfing. Then, the idea for aliases would involve making the primary identity known only to administrators. This way, it's an effective alias for the average user, but administrators are able to apply effective rule enforcement such as a ban or revocation of "verified" status. If necessary then consider an alternative idea of providing a web-based interface with details on each lobby account that aren't spoofable. Details could include account age, true ID (necessary because lobby pseudonym is currently changeable to anything, which I think should be restricted), rated match history with names, dates and durations of rated matches and their outcomes. And, consider taking inspiration from an idea from the professionals. Valve's Steam service publicly displays past aliases that each account has used and prevents changing alias too frequently. Mutations of this idea could also be useful, such as revealing the primary "verified" username of the player after a match ends. This would allow players to create aliases in order to avoid strategic targeting in-game by other players, but still allow a reputation-based justice system to function. These types of information help to detect artificial rating inflation through thrown matches and show how accurate the rating likely is based on the skill level of opponents. This information would allow hosters, and games limited to "verified" users, to require that new accounts, for example, have played several legitimate rated matches before they can be allowed into "verified" matches. This would increase the cost of creating a new fake account for the problematic users, thereby helping to make bans effective. Other measures would also be useful for this, as I have listed earlier. Please go back and re-read this post. Do you see what my goals are here, now? Which of these goals do you share?
  21. I think this might prevent friends from active players at institutions like schools or universities to join. Where there's a will, there's a way. How about adjusting the policy so that it's flexible? We could require such users to fill out a form requesting an override to the new account creation rate limit. Then an admin reviews the application and allows on a case-by-case basis. Or, simply rely on the "unverified" status for new accounts created, and set the limit for new accounts created per IP address to something like 10 per month.
  22. I'd like to There is just nothing I tried in the past three years to make changes to the lobby that ever worked. That makes it sound like user1 is completely to blame for the lack of software upgrades to the lobby. Let's please avoid placing blame because I'm sure that not only one person is to blame for the impasse. How about let's share responsibility and look for ways to help that are within our own scope of responsibility, such as "find a C++ coder" for the 0 A. D. lobby improvements. Last I checked there's over $30k in the account for WFG in case there is not a C++ coder available willing to donate time. Another idea: offer to help Dunedan with the CI and pipelines on Github for the lobby server software in a way that does not require giving you administrative privileges. Ask what exactly they're stuck on, provide instructions and pointers to articles that answer questions, provide advice on best practices and anecdotes about how similar problems were solved elsewhere.
  23. How do you know why go2die retired from the forum? I think that it is plausible that lobby moderator response time was at least part of the reason, but go2die's last two posts on the forum before retiring were complaining about the difficulty of getting a mod signed for publication on mod.io. (For the record, I think that go2die gave up too early. It looks like user1 is trying to improve right now. But, he's not the only person who has needed to improve, in my opinion.) And, improving the lobby moderation is not something that only involves user1. There are aspects that are outside user1's control, such as improving the legal terms, and whether or not email addresses are collected. Many of the features suggested above, such as showing account age to all users, preventing spoofing of rated games played and rating, and indication of whether an account is "verified" or "unverified", would also involve changes to the 0 A.D. client, which is not (solely?) user1's responsibility. Can we please act more like a team here instead of just pointing fingers at each other?
  24. If there is no one with the official role in WFG of drafting legal terms, then the word responsible is still appropriate. It means who has accepted the responsibility for this task? If collecting email addresses is not the course of action that WFG wants to take then what solutions are being implemented to ensure that bans are effective? Here are some ideas from others, as well as from me. Improve the rate limit for new account creation per IP. Someone said that an IP can create 1 account per hour. Consider adjusting this to, for example, 1 account per month. I think that Gmail allows 10 email addresses to be created from a certain IP before they require a mobile phone number to be attached to a new account. Make account age public for all users to see. Also, make rated game record and rating unspoofable. Regularly scan for weak passwords, and lock accounts with weak passwords. Ban them if there is no password reset capability. Allow free registration without an email address, but establish a policy where all new accounts are "unverified" and have limited privileges. Allow "verified" users to host games that are only open to other "verified" accounts. Changing an account to "verified" requires 3 referrals from existing "verified" accounts, which will lose their own "verified" status if they commit fraud, and also requires an email address and dossier to be filled out. The purpose of the dossier is to have consistency of individual identity across duplicate accounts. Allow use of aliases in order to protect players from bullying or targeting, but require that the aliases are tied to a "verified" account in order to make rule enforcement effective. What's happening with the status quo is that the cost of player misconduct and easy duplicate account creation is being externalized to the player base, especially those players who regularly host games. This still has an impact on WFG, of course, as it causes players to consider leaving or at least withdrawing support for WFG. Case in point: go2die's retiring from the WFG forum yesterday.
  • Create New...