Norse_Harold

A good question. Ideally the maintainer of the mod will write a public-facing document that describes the changes. In the meantime, the git commit log has concise descriptions of the changes. Click a commit, and it lists the files that are changed along with a unified "diff" view of the lines that were changed by the commit. If this is confusing to you, I suggest reading a tutorial on how to read a diff patch. Start reading from about 25% down the page, at This is the traditional "unified diff" header. I see that the first two commits simply copy the original alpha 26 simulation data files. And, the third commit is the Han farming upgrade fix. Therefore, currently the only change is the Han farming upgrade fix.

Hmm, that depends. This is what it depends on. How one defines a "tryhard". To bring in some more intellectual content, take a look at Sun Tzu's Art of War. It has some advice that is kind of similar to what vinme has written. IV. TACTICAL DISPOSITIONS 11. What the ancients called a clever fighter is one who not only wins, but excels in winning with ease. However, it also has advice about training and discipline that seems to differ from what vinme has written. 16. The consummate leader cultivates the moral law, and strictly adheres to method and discipline; thus it is in his power to control success.

Thanks for reporting this. It's definitely against the Terms of Use. If it happens often then we can request a temp ban. Just one room name with profanity is currently being punished with a kick from the lobby, which has the additional effect of de-listing the game. And, when a game is de-listed then players can't rejoin in case they're disconnected at some point. In some cases I may issue a warning to the game hoster instead of an immediate kick from the lobby. When this happens in the future, and hopefully not from Aslan., , if I'm online then please ping me or seeh in the lobby and/or IRC, and I'll take action as soon as possible. If I'm not online then try pinging user1, and if he doesn't reply then post evidence on the forum.

I've added an FAQ answer that is inspired by this thread. Scroll down on that web page to find the answer to "I was kicked, muted or banned from the lobby. Why, and how do I rejoin?".

Is it acceptable to try hard to explain why one should not try hard? Or, would that also be trying hard? Then if we can't try hard in explaining why we shouldn't try hard then does that mean that the tryhards have already won?

@ChesnutterYou have connected to the lobby 45 minutes ago, right? So you weren't banned or even muted. I think that it was just a kick. You can reconnect immediately if that happens, but remember to be careful about language in the lobby.

@ChesnutterIf you were simply kicked then you are able and allowed to reconnect to the lobby immediately. There are four English swearwords (the worst 4-letter words) that cause the profanity filter bot to auto-kick players. If you were muted or banned then we need to know your lobby username and the approximate time and date that it happened. There is a possibility that you were auto-muted by the profanity filter bot, in which case only user1 can undo that currently. If you were manually muted or banned then it is usually intentional, and you can engage in the appeal process to try to have that lifted. As far as the language that is considered against the rules, please read through the lobby legal terms, especially the Terms of Use.

@PlayerMatCheck this thread for troubleshooting ideas for "black screen" problems. It is usually caused by a hardware issue, such as a factory overclocked video card or the monitor is not on the nVidia approved list for G-SYNC compatibility.

The fix won't require adjusting the map, right? Instead, it involves adjustments to the model of the structure and its metadata? For example, add a stone foundation under the expected ground level of the structure, and/or adjust the area of level terrain expected for placing the structure?

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.

TwainRick built this Wonder in the northwest corner of the Ambush map in alpha 0.0.25b. It resembles modern cantilevered architecture.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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".

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.

What's the status on this bug?

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?