ufa

Ahorita como que se ha caído el servidor, no es tu culpa

Thanks for the thorough response @Norse_Harold. I won't keep this going too long—I'll let you get on with your "private discussions" and "secret projects," both of which I hope lead to a better game experience. As I hope I communicated, I realize it's a difficult task and despite my frustrations I do appreciate the progress (alluded to) being made. I'll just clarify that the core of the issue I wanted to identify remains, which is hopefully just a temporary issue in lieu of something more robust in the future, which is: I, as an end user—even one statistically way more involved than the average, to "care" and be posting on the forums—am (likely) not going to download third party software and conduct/prepare forensic reports with regards to DDOS attacks, let alone with (up until this thread) zero documentation, protocol, or even common knowledge towards the plausibility of whether a DDOSer will be disciplined. I'd simply propose that, if possible and in addition to all the work you're doing, the gap between "things everyone knows and can demonstrate albeit with the rudimentary means available in-game" and "things needed to take action on people who ruin the game" be reduced, even a little. In the context of the evidence I presented, I'd offer that (screenshots of) a player admitting multiple times they are DDOSing, (screenshots of) counting down to a DDOS, and (screenshots of) entires games dropping/being disconnected (aka being DDOS'd) should suffice, or at least pass the bar for a minimum demonstration to be investigated/expanded upon, ideally by other players too. If charts with red lines spiking are necessary, that's at least great to know, and the purpose behind this thread.

Okay, query basically answered: either there is none, there isn't anyone anyone actively enforcing it (nor responding to or documenting basic questions surrounding it), or both. I insist I'm not asking or trying to point this out as a means of throwing dirt on anyone or the game, but it's a pretty glaring reality I think will need to be reckoned with at some point.

I'm not privy to development stuff but surely 1,000s and 1,000s of bugs have been fixed across the numerous alphas. This thread is silly.

Is it documented anywhere, formally or informally, what the protocol for reports of DDOS is, if anything? What sort of/how much evidence is needed? Who decides what the resulting action is? Why, in the case of my attempts to "do something" about a DDOSing player—which is what in-games mods instruct you to do upon identifying a DDOSer—after months and months with multiple reports, does nothing happen? I ask because I've been exchanging private messages with (what I believe to be) a moderator, Norse_Harold, about a blatant case of DDOSing (from Larsvandijk, we all know)—confirmed by many, many other players, with evidence—to no avail. The point of this thread isn't to throw dirt on Norse_Harold, I just want to express frustration as a player for what is a totally opaque process which is seemingly not configured to attend to this rare but annoying aspect of 0AD's online play. Again, my desire isn't to throw dirt on Norse, in fact if I had to guess I imagine he isn't sufficiently equipped to handle this sort of thing, hence the questions at the top of the thread. If the answer is: there is none, could there be? Or is DDOSing just something players have to hold their nose around and get through?

At what point does this stop being just people's differing opinions (flippant scapegoating for and over-exaggerated claims of "cheating" against) and solidify into some actual, official protocol surrounding where to draw the line on over-reaching mods? What drawing the line means, and what's considered over-reaching are themselves two things that need defining for that to happen. Is such a thing even possible given the current structure of 0AD/WFG/the small but vocal group of online players present in these discussions? Regardless of where you fall with regards to 0AD I'd be really surprised if anyone here is of the opinion that "anything goes, with zero transparency" is the ideal position, so what's the path to an alternative? Beyond the scope of proGUI, there either probably already exist or could come to exist actual "cheat" mods, and there's nothing in place to do anything about them—despite all the furor that gets generated in these topics, in both directions. Edit: I'm at 14.37% added performance given your chart @seeh, thanks for such precise and investigative science. Nice to see someone taking the game seriously for once around here.

I'm curious if, outside of modifying the game with extra code, mouse buttons, third party software: [TBD keyboard key] + option + click * [numerical value in settings] = [numerical value in settings] amount of troops attacking the unit clicked on would be the sort of thing that could become a core part of the game. What shift clicking is to batch training, this hotkey (in combination with a number in settings) would be to attacking. @Atrik IMO this isn't mutually exclusive with any (speculative) stances, like "attack weak," and would likely be used in addition to them. So far the only accounts responding are me, another burner account who only replies to proGUI/auto-sniping topics (like myself), and Atrik. I guess we're all going in circles.

Seems like you're projecting or referring to threads other than this one, which isn't about auto-sniping. In fact I've never posted against auto-sniping in that thread, the points I made there (again, another thread) were about mod transparency. Take up your issues with the people actually vocally opposed to your suggestions, in the places where that's being discussed.

Nice. Nice. Why not both?

Maybe a naive thought, but I wondered if something like having a batch key but for attacking (like shift + option + click) would be useful, and perhaps a nice middle ground between the necessity to snipe and dislike of repetitive clicking hundreds of times (and by extension the desire of some to entirely automate the behavior). So, you could send 2, 4, 6, or 10 units to attacking with a single click. I don't really know what the implications of this would be—besides imagining it would be useful—so curious what others think. Ideally the variable itself would be modifiable in the menu to a user's liking similar to the current batch variable. Edit: I'd forgotten shift is used for building things in queue, but used it as an example as it's the batch key for training units. Could be any key.

Not gonna read all that but assuming you're responding to me (if not, ignore): I'm not calling for bans, the opposite, live and let live re: mods (because there's no alternative, authority, or consensus), but one should be able to see what mods someone is using—simple.

IMO the fact that were this mod to exist, with: "ignoreInCompatibilityChecks": true set, it would be undetectable in-lobby (as I understand it) is more worrying then how the mod is perceived ethically. Maybe my understanding of mods is wrong, although from what I gathered from the proGUI thread is that this is still more or less the case. The discussion of "what's fair play re: mods" is an interesting one but seems way too porous and lacking (surprisingly) authority for it to be productive, so again IMO the ability to see what mods someone is really using seems more useful than 10+ people pulling at opposite ends of a "what's fair" rope. As with even the most basic semblance of lobby moderation and prohibition of racial slurs in usernames (has this happened yet?)—which was brought up numerous times on the forum to total inaction (and even push back)—I'm at least hoping that over time the total black box that is mod use will slowly get some attention. I suspect a few top players will change their approach (or at least lose some perks like totally revealed maps for allies and enemies) coincidentally around the same time.

Just double checking: in theory mods can contain cheats (like revealing the entire map, or seeing enemy stats), un-agreed upon advantages (like automating certain aspects of gameplay) it's not possible to see what mods someone is using, and even if it was it's possible to disguise what mods are truly active (per @Atrik, "hiding a mod in a mod") there is no in-game mechanic to prevent undesirable or far-reaching mods in multiplayer gameplay Probably old news (and I've heard through the grapevine that most competitive players have their own cocktail of not public mods), I'd just long thought that—similar to what happens if all players don't share the same mods in the lobby—multiplayer matches would get thrown off. Apparently this is not the case, and someone could in theory have a sniping mod or free-resource mod and it would not interrupt gameplay?

Without weighing in entirely, one thing missing from the discussion IMO is the inability to see what mods people are using outside of them being the host (and it being listed). I imagine anyone intent on hiding the mods they use and cunning enough to "cheat" (definition pending) could simply spoof the names, but some of the discussion surrounding "free will" to decide whether or not to play with certain players using certain mods ignores the fact that it's impossible to see. I'm only beginning to learn about the existence of some of these more "far reaching" (unit and economy control) mods, in terms of effect on gameplay and competitiveness. I'd mostly just thought that surely any mods that offer such benefits are vetted (or not multiplayer-compatible), but that doesn't seem to be the case. This first occurred to me when I noticed that when someone with boonGUI mod hosts a game it effects the color red of my game too, which was my first venture into realizing that someone else's mod could effect my game. A standard for what sort of mods are allowed re: multiplayer (assuming competetive, here) gameplay and what's considered going too far would be useful, as it seems like it's sort of an honor system at the moment? Or is what you all are saying ( @BreakfastBurrito_007 / @real_tabasco_sauce ) is that if a mod did cross the line it would in fact be detectable? If it wouldn't be detectable, I think it's worth figuring out what's acceptable and not. As mentioned if a mod were to do auto-sniping I don't think it should come down to host's prerogative whether or not to allow, IMO that shouldn't be multiplayer-compatible, or should be somewhere in-between like mods that require everyone to have it installed (which would be like a pseudo detection method).