Norse_Harold

@Mr.lieStan is away for a conference for the next few weeks. You might as well get a head start on the licensing requirements by following the instructions here. You can also post a statement here that you agree to license the work that you publish to WFG repositories and forum. Copy/paste the form from another user's post into your own post.

Good question. I'm not able to extract the 0ad win32 executable with p7zip-full on Linux. I think that it's unlikely that any of the devs will work on this, at least not any time soon. You can make the change yourself. First, build from source. Alternatively, you might be able to use the precompiled binaries available on the source repository. Then, modify the release script to use an alternative system, maybe 7-zip SFX, for creating a Windows installer. Then run the script to produce the installer for Windows.

Thanks for posting this info. It helps to inform the player base so that a decentralized justice system can be effective. According to user1, lobby moderators aren't responsible for moderating player conduct within the game. The "jurisdiction" of a lobby moderator is public lobby messages, user names, and game room names. The in-game conduct needs to be moderated by the game host and the players in the game. My recommendation is for more hosters to establish rules for their games, and for more players to join such games. Here is a forum thread with my advice about how to choose and enforce rules for the "pro" or "OP" team games. In addition, I would like to see lobby bans become more effective, and when lobby bans are effective then in-game bans are effective. We need a C++ software developer to volunteer to help with that.

Thanks for posting about this. @Kampot be careful to avoid insulting him back. Some of your comments are semi insults, although they are of course said in jest. Lobby moderators can't do anything about player conduct within the game. Our jurisdiction, is public lobby messages, user names, and game room names. The in-game conduct needs to be moderated by the game host and the players in the game. My recommendation is for more hosters to establish rules for their games, and for more players to join such games. Here is a forum thread with my advice about how to choose and enforce rules for the "pro" or "OP" team games. In addition, I would like to see lobby bans become more effective. We need a C++ software developer to volunteer to help with that.

I see that you've changed the poll response choices to "yes" or "no". For the record, here is a screenshot of the original poll response choices. Did you change it voluntarily or because an admin forced you to? Or, both? Or, other? See, there are more than two possibilities... I'm still boycotting the poll. I understand the word "smurf" to mean someone who is lying about their skill and using an unknown account in order to disrupt balance during game formulation. I object to calling everyone on that list a "smurf".

I recommend that people boycott this poll until admins can take action. Different people define "smurf" differently. Is it merely a duplicate account, or is it an account engaged in misconduct such as lying about one's skill? G.O.A.T's poll question is a loaded question with a narrow range of responses. It's similar to the classic false dilemma question of, "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" If a person answers "yes" then it implies that the person was in the past beating his wife. If the person answers "no" then it implies that the person is continuing to beat his wife. There are nuances in the debate about duplicate accounts. The real problem is easy, immediate and free ability to create new reputable accounts. G.O.A.T, please put your efforts into helping solve this problem.

According to the FAQ, "Authentication failed" usually appears "when you have got a typo in your password". You need to contact user1 to have your password reset. Here is a list of information to send user1 in order to try to prove that you own the account. Since it's a brand new account, the only relevant information is when you created the account (including the approximate time of day) and your IP address. user1 can retrieve your IP address from the forum logs, assuming that you used the same Internet connection to create your lobby and forum accounts.

Spectators shouldn't be allowed in tournament matches, and I think they also shouldn't be allowed in rated 1v1s. At a minimum there is a big risk of "ghosting", ie. sharing information with a player that shouldn't be shared. At a maximum there is a risk of disruption of the game through network attack (DoS or DDoS) in order to benefit a certain player. Unlike with gladiator arenas of ancient Rome, you can be a spectator afterward by watching the replays.

Yesterday, user1 informed me that the leaked accounts are banned. I think that they have been banned for a while, but yesterday is when I was informed of it. As for why it took so long for the accounts to be banned, it was necessary to update the Terms of Use to forbid account sharing and disclosing passwords. Then it was necessary for the new ToU to take effect, which happened when alpha 26 was released. Clause 1b is the new clause that forbids account sharing and disclosing passwords.

G.O.A.T now lists the claim that WilsonWilson is guerringuerrin as "under review". There is also a new note at the beginning explaining that G.O.A.T does not claim that the information is correct, and that players should do their own research. I agree, but it's not enough. Please have a higher standard of evidence for the accusations that you make. You saw how we refuted the claim that guerringuerrin is WilsonWilson. That should be part of the protocol.

Okay, I've read the links that you shared, in particular gdpr-info.eu. I found the excerpt that you mentioned about "online identifier", which articles say means IP address. In fact, an IP address might or might not be personally identifiable information. It depends on whether the controller of the information has enough information to determine the natural person associated with the IP address. "... applies to IP addresses. If the controller has the legal option to oblige the (Internet service) provider to hand over additional information which enable him to identify the user behind the IP address, this is also personal data." Source: https://gdpr-info.eu/issues/personal-data/ Even if there were evidence of a criminal act against the data collector, I don't think that an ISP would hand over the identity of a person using an IP address to a data collector who is a civilian. Maybe the information could be obtained by the data collector during a trial in which the data collector was the plaintiff. Anyway, the only time that an IP address is personal data is if the collector has access to other data that would reveal the natural person associated with that IP address.

Absolutely right. This is an important principle of any democracy. Innocent until proven guilty. So far the only evidence shown actually disproves the accusation that guerringuerrin is WilsonWilson. I'll add to the evidence that guerringuerrin has posted. On Wednesday, WilsonWilson was playing a rated 1v1 against BeTe. I joined as spectator. Their populations were 62 and 95 at minute 10, with WilsonWilson having the lower population of the two. BeTe, a 1049 rated player, destroyed WilsonWilson in that rated 1v1. WilsonWilson got 12 kills, BeTe got 100. WilsonWilson resigned at about 19 minutes. WilsonWilson has played 263 rated games, 125 of which were wins. His rating is 1073. I don't know why anyone would think that WilsonWilson and guerringuerrin are the same person. It's an insult to guerringuerrin as he is not that unskilled. I'm joking. He's significantly skilled, and WilsonWilson isn't. Yup. Actually, I would like to see both. What's the evidence in the first place, and remove the claim since it's been disproven. @G.O.A.T Your list of alternate accounts (not necessarily all or even most are smurfs, since "smurf" means lying about one's skill) is useful. Please keep updating it. Also, please act responsibly and ensure that you are following the golden rule: Do Unto Others as You Would Have Them Do Unto You. That means don't use alternate accounts yourself if you consider it so bad. It means have a high standard of proof before making accusations. It means correct mistakes promptly. It means answer questions when people ask you what the evidence is. You're not violating GDPR by collecting anonymous information about players. It's not personally identifiable. Don't worry about what rm-rf is saying about that. But, please, follow your own rules, as well.

Maybe ancient aliens visited the Macedonians to give them advanced technology before the other civilizations.

@CovenantKillerJContact @user1 about it via PM. You need to try to prove that you are the account holder, for example based on IP address, approximate dates that you created the account and that you last signed into the account, example things that you said in the lobby, approximate last known rating, etc. Another possibility is to prove that you control the IP address that successfully logged into the account. If you can catch user1 on IRC then you can PM him there to ask what he wants to know about your account in order to prove that you're the owner. Be aware that there is sometimes a several day response time from user1.

@Frederick_1I see that you have been saving and reloading matches, which causes replay files to be split up. 0 A. D. is not currently designed to correctly store replays that are generated when the game is restored from a save file. You're trying to manually reassemble replay files generated this way and then view such replays. This is an experimental project that depends on understanding how replay files are formatted, how the game state is controlled by replay files, and how to join replay files together such that the replays will work seamlessly. It's a neat idea, I want to encourage you to continue working on it, but please don't report crashes, during experimental projects, as bugs in 0 A.D. If you have a bug to report that is separate from the experimental project, and you've identified steps to reproduce the bug symptoms that are surely starting from a clean slate (ie. no leftover reassembled replay files) then please report it properly in the 0 A.D. bug tracking system. First look for an existing bug report that matches the symptoms you are observing. If you don't find one then click Register at the top in order to create a new login on Trac. Then create a new ticket and fill out this form. Summary: Expected results: Actual results: Steps to reproduce: Computing Environnment (OS brand and version, hardware, relevant driver version and other software versions): Relevant logs, files that reproduce the symptoms, screenshots, etc.:

Okay, thanks for the reply and clarification on this. By "one update" during the tournament, does version 0.26.2 of community-mod count as that "one update"? Or do you mean one more update beyond version 0.26.2?

Yeah. And, before any release there should be some playtesting done in TGs with the exact commits that are being considered for a new release. The player base are not our beta testers.

There's an ongoing tournament that is expected to last until at least October 30th. Players are using the community-mod for its current fixes of critical bugs. Think about what happens if the community-mod suddenly changes mid-tournament. It will end up benefiting certain tournament players who have relevant skills, strategies and practice with the civs affected by the community-mod. This would end up creating an unfair situation for tournament players. We need a solution to this problem. Suggested solutions follow. Create a separate mod with only the bugfixes, which the tournament players will use. Example: copy community-mod v0.26.2 as it is now to a mod named community-bugfixes. Feature freeze community-mod until the tournament is finished. Ask the tournament players to not use the community-mod for tournament matches. But, I think it's too late for this because the first round was probably played with community-mod enabled.

Yeah, the stats are still valid, and can be chosen according to gameplay balancing. Hiring peasants from a market could be explained as follows. A market is simply where you meet peasants, as they're selling their wares there.

Please don't call it "slave" or "serf". Better would be "skilled worker", "peasant", or "freeman". Peasants were not slaves, they got 1 to 30 acres of personal farmland and kept he harvest from it, and had more days off than the average American worker. "Freemen were, as the name suggests, the peasants with the most freedom. They had less obligation to the lord, but they were still subject to manorial jurisdiction and custom." Certain groups would like to see slavery restored in various areas, and games can have a formative experience for people, especially children. Do we want the next generation to think that slavery was so ubiquitous in ancient times that there must have been some good in it? It is not even historically accurate to say that slavery was ubiquitous in every culture around 0 A.D. Check out this mini-documentary, "Modern TV - How did English medieval peasants see themselves?" about slaves vs serfs vs peasants. "In the area known as Danelore there are actually relatively few serfs recorded, which is interesting. They're mostly Freemen, they mostly pay rent. And, in some areas, particularly Northumberland for example in the very north of England, there is a curious thing about Fanes and Dranes. And, they actually paid tax based on the number of horned beasts they kept which is a complete hangover from the very earliest days of the medieval period." (7:39 m:s in the documentary)

This. I think that either all of the forge upgrades should be (small) percentage increases, or none of them should be.

What? No. Please avoid posting statements that you haven't verified. This post explains how to see the list of changes in the community-mod. There are no commits to the "main" or "signed" branch related to the Hero Garrison bug. There aren't even any merge requests related to it. Yes, Stan said that this bug will be fixed in the community-mod, but that is a statement about the future, not the present.

I wrote up "Steps to reproduce" and "Workaround" instructions in the bug report here.

@a1872This is a known bug caused by playing "Regicide" mode in victory conditions with "Hero Garrison" enabled with "Persist match settings" enabled. You will need to delete matchsettings.json and matchsettings.mp.json in the Game Data config directory. Then, start 0ad again and it should work correctly. In order to prevent the bug from occurring again you need to either disable persist match settings, or avoid enabling "Hero Garrison" whenever you play "Regicide" mode. Most of the skilled players do the latter.