guerringuerrin

If I remember correctly, the hypothesis was that RatingBot was still maintaining an open session with the previous xmppID and that was why it was not granting the rating to the player's new xmppID when rejoinin after disconnection

Hi, @Vantha. Ty so much for this work. How can we contribute to its content?I think some micro/hotkey/setup would be nice to be included In another similar topic, I was wondering if there's a way to load the tricks through some remote server instead of being built-in into the game so we can still adding and modifying its content everytime we want instead of having to wait to the next alpha. Just wondering

Just for the record. Yeah! I use a lot garrison as teleport. I always hold U instead of spaming as sometimes building capacity gets full just right when you lift the finger and remaining soldiers no more enters the building turning the manouvier in a total mess xD

Frankly, I don't think Atrik will hide his mod and continue using it. There are several advantages to having that information in the gamesteup. Not only to warn that someone is using an unwanted mod (although that can be breached). But also to check the compatibility of the mods, to avoid oos and disconnections. As I said, we should try another approach and try to build trust

At least making mods visible would give all players better access to that information, instead of everyone gradually finding out when someone mentions it or says someone else is using a mod. Sure, there will be cheaters who manage to disguise their mods somehow, but it’s better than nothing. And giving an important part of the community some kind of response (even if it's not perfect) is important. The same argument can be applied to the smart queue in proGUI. Throughout the various debates on this topic, some of us have tried to discuss it respectfully, but it never seems to get anywhere. The benefits of automation are obvious. The advantages of Quickstart are hardly noticeable in the long term, but they still serve as a good example of the perks of automation. However, the benefits of smarttrain are clearly significant. And you always end up arguing that you're just as good without the mod enabled. But we don’t need a scientific study to reach a consensus that most players might experience significant downtime in their barracks due to the fast-paced nature of the game during intense moments. I agree that we need to find appropriate ways to address this issue. Personally, I haven’t liked how some players have approached it, and I don’t think the solution is to attack @Atrik or players who use the mod. But I also recognize that the situation is quite frustrating because every time we get back into this debate, Atrik ends up saying that smart train doesn’t offer any advantage, that it’s just a GUI improvement, and we end up right back where we started instead of making progress. Given the challenging conditions under which this project is being developed and the few hands available to work on it, it would be good if we tried to resolve our differences, take responsibility for our contribution to this conflict, try to build trust, and strengthen collective work.

This could be a basic starting point for the setting area of this feature and I think u could use same new gear icon with different background colour to notify the host about some issue in the mods setup and a new column could be added to that window.

you think this could work for proposal 2? Players can check mods by clicking in a new Mods button on the right menu, and it will show all the users set as players and the mods they are using. This text will change dynamically in the same fashion as others game setup stuff. Additionally, there's a gear icon on the left side of every player that opens a window where u can check if mods are signed. If possible, this gear icon could change colour to red (or we can think another kind of notification) so the host can be notified there's some issue to look at. Maybe gear could be the same as the Petra setting and put it in the same place. idk if that makes some conflict

@ffm2 @real_tabasco_sauce I also wondering. that one turn with 70 commands could be also an autociv pause? U know with autociv u can make orders while paused

@ffm2 couldn he just doing alt+right click micro fasion? (where alt is "Order one unit" hotkey) while some lag spikee was going on?

This would be nice to incorporate, although it does not prevent encapsulating code within another mod This statement is a unfair, considering the lengthy arguments I've and others gave about this mod in the past, not appealing to simplifications like saying it's a cheat and that's it, but delving into the automations it carries out and whether those automations are fair or not in a competitive game and/or if they should be part of the vanilla game and why. In the same sense as the previous paragraph I would say that it is important for all of us to review how much willingness we have put into having a constructive debate on this matter...

@RangerK The idea that the proGUI smart train offers no advantage over the original vanilla autoqueue is false. The vanilla production system stops when there are no resources available. The proGUI system automatically adjusts production based on available resources and houses. And it does this instantly while you can be busy in battle or whatever else. You don't even have to think about batch size based on barracks. The system does everything on its own. You set the ratio you want in your army (ranged/melee, etc.) and the mod produces on its own. You can even set an amount of resources you don't want to be spend. It's fantastic. You only have to worry about houses. If you run out of available houses, as soon as you build a new one the system automatically starts producing units. And calculate the batch size to produce per barrack. Instantly. It gives you freedom to do other tasks without worrying about production in a much more efficient way than the original system. It is not, by any means, a simple aesthetic/GUI improvement. We can argue whether this is cheating or not, whether vanilla gameplay should be like this, whether it is more or less fun, or fair. I consider many of the mod's contributions very valuable but to say that it offers no advantages is ridiculous. Just try it by yourself and you will see.

What about adding account lifetime or creation date to the account details at lobby? People can still create accounts and leave them for a while before use it, but it seems like a simple way to detect the most of the smurf accounts

New test. Same Specs:

my results

What a wonderful game! That was my favourite RTS as a kid I played on a local server called Ombuserver with a cracked copy I still remember the CD-Key number. It was a famous one, starts with 3630.... The difficulty and learning curve of the games have eased over the years as the gaming industry has changed. This is not something exclusive to RTS games, regardless of the fact that they have always been very complex games compared to other genres. On a visual level, it must be said that the era of pre-rendered graphics has had milestones of beauty and personal style never achieved by the 100% 3D era. Good old days? Maybe.... I think one of the characteristics of 0ad is the scale of its battles, and I think this is something good to highlight and preserve. An army of 100/180 units fighting against another is something epic and remarkable about the game. I think that perhaps the "simplification" could cover other aspects such as the amount of technologies possible to research, the need to unlock units in order to produce them. Aspects that can end up resulting in the player avoiding even trying to produce a specific unit due to the resources and time that he has to dedicate to be able to enable units. Something I've been thinking about and am very curious about is how the dynamics of the game would change if the number of possible units to select were limited. The StarCraft community has always complained about this number being so small when, like 0ad in standard configuration, the maximum production limit is 200 units. However, could this limitation when selecting units substantially modify the dynamics of a huge army moving across the map? What do you think? It must be said that SC 1 had a moment of stagnation in the game's meta when in the end everything came down to massing a single unit and thus winning the game. I don't know if this has changed over time and, although at the top of the competitive field it was very common to see very innovative strategies with tech units that, thanks to their special abilities, could tip the balance to one side or the other, the truth is that at the average level the game's meta ended up being massing a unit before your enemy and overtaking them by taking advantage of the snowball effect after winning the first battle. Some of this snowball effect is also present in 0ad and that's why it's so important not to kill your army because a first defeat on the battlefield will in most cases end with the defeat of that player or the defeat of that edge, speaking of TGs. I think in AOE II this snowball effect is a bit more difficult because of its "hard counter" model, where one can choose to switch to another unit to counter the enemy's unit. In this sense, I think that what we should aim for is to "disarm" or improve the 0ad meta so that not everything is reduced to an economic race in which each player tries to get to a full army, full tech + rams faster to win the battle. I think that at an average level of play it is simpler to stick to an effective strategy than to risk trying innovative things, since, most likely, these will give worse results than the classic boom race. The "fear of failure", in such a small community, with so few hosts and game options, can also play a role in this sort of homogenization of gameplay. I think that dynamizing phases 1 and 2 to create new game meta in early and mid game is a good starting point.