0AD on Steam?

[Stan`]

2 hours ago, Perzival12 said:

It would limit it though…

Nah go to ragequit is just alt+f4

[ShadowOfHassen]

Could we just make it so that if the game is terminated for any reason it counts as a resign?

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

Quite frankly, if you disconnect for any reason, it should count as a hard loss. Resigning counts less (a soft loss). 

[Dakara]

don't nerf again the fabulous feature of this game, the pause and the possibility to leave and back are unique in RTS game.

you already removed the possibility to replace a player in easy way..

the lobby should ne improve with some tab of various discussion and language

btw steam has a big solo player population, it is a risky without campagin release. but No risk no gain 

I don't know anything about networking but I don't understand why the lobby is so heavy, the game will have a lot of players to support at the beginning then this will decrease.

 

[Stan`]

28 minutes ago, Dakara said:

I don't know anything about networking but I don't understand why the lobby is so heavy, the game will have a lot of players to support at the beginning then this will decrease.

I guess that's my fault before talking with @Dunedan I thought the lobby could not handle more than a few hundred players because there used to be issues with heavy logging in the past. It seems it will be okay. The biggest hurdles will be managing people, we'll need more moderators, the chat will be flooded and we'll need to handle the UDP 20595 port not being open a few times per day /hour.

Here is a talk of another game that went through these hurdles https://ftp.fau.de/fosdem/2020/K.3.201/gamedev_spring_steam.mp4

[guerringuerrin]

1 hour ago, Dakara said:

don't nerf again the fabulous feature of this game, the pause and the possibility to leave and back are unique in RTS game.

We are going off topic but I think the best solution would be that if someone leaves the game without resigning, the opponent should still have the possibility to finish the match by eliminating the enemy and earn the points.
This way, we don’t remove the possibility that if someone disconnects, the game can remain paused and be resumed once they reconnect.

[Dunedan]

7 hours ago, Dakara said:

I don't know anything about networking but I don't understand why the lobby is so heavy, the game will have a lot of players to support at the beginning then this will decrease.

The lobby isn't resource heavy and right now we should be able to handle a few thousand concurrent players. There is also work in progress to make it even more scalable (https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/pulls/8679). However, as @Stan` already mentioned, with a sudden significant increase of players we'd definitely get trouble moderating the lobby with the capabilities we have at hand for that right now.

[Vantha]

On 18/02/2026 at 3:27 PM, guerringuerrin said:

I think the best solution would be that if someone leaves the game without resigning, the opponent should still have the possibility to finish the match by eliminating the enemy and earn the points.

Is there any specific reason why that isn't the case yet?

I see it the same way:

- If the client disconnects from the host, he should only ever do so for a good reason and communicate to the host that he'll return. If he doesn't do that, it should be possible for the host to just finish the game without anyone playing on the other side, win, and consequently gain rating points as usual.

- If the host closes the game prematurely, it should simply count as resigning and therefore as a loss in the rating system.

 

 

[guerringuerrin]

3 hours ago, Vantha said:

Is there any specific reason why that isn't the case yet?

I don't know for sure, but my guess is that this behavior wasn’t implemented to allow players the chance to reconnect. In the past, the game may have had more stability issues, and it probably didn’t seem fair to punish players for something that could have been caused by the game itself rather than by them.

3 hours ago, Vantha said:

- If the client disconnects from the host, he should only ever do so for a good reason and communicate to the host that he'll return. If he doesn't do that, it should be possible for the host to just finish the game without anyone playing on the other side, win, and consequently gain rating points as usual.

- If the host closes the game prematurely, it should simply count as resigning and therefore as a loss in the rating system.

Yeah, this seems like the most appropriate behavior, since it also allows the disconnected player to rejoin the game. Many times that’s exactly what happens: the player reconnects. Also, since it’s very common to play against people you know, it’s useful to be able to pause the game and wait for the client to reconnect before resuming.

3 hours ago, Vantha said:

- If the host closes the game prematurely, it should simply count as resigning and therefore as a loss in the rating system.

On the other hand, if the host disconnects, it’s reasonable to count it as a resignation, since one could argue that the host is responsible for ensuring that their connection is stable.


Just brainstorming:

Maybe it would be good to have a short grace period before a disconnection counts as a loss. For example, during the first two minutes of the game, if someone disconnects, it wouldn’t count as a loss, since it’s unlikely that the player left because they were losing.

Another idea that comes to mind is some kind of “offline timer.”
Each player could have, for example, up to five minutes to reconnect to the game. This would give them a fair chance to resume, while also avoiding situations where the remaining player is forced to finish the match alone just to secure the win.

The offline timer could continue running even while the game is paused.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

3 hours ago, Vantha said:

- If the host closes the game prematurely, it should simply count as resigning and therefore as a loss in the rating system.

Couldn't the game state get loaded to the client in this case? 

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

On 18/02/2026 at 3:31 PM, Dunedan said:

However, as @Stan` already mentioned, with a sudden significant increase of players we'd definitely get trouble moderating the lobby with the capabilities we have at hand for that right now.

This is my biggest hang up, and the resigning/ranking points issue. 

[Vantha]

44 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Couldn't the game state get loaded to the client in this case? 

During a MP match, the game state is always present on all clients. Essentially, all players run an ordinary SP game simultaneously, but receive the inputs from each other over the network. And each player simply "feeds" that input (received from the other players) into their own game instance and since the behavior of it is deterministic, all of the instances stay in sync. To be fully precise, it's not the mouse movement or button clicks that are shared over the network, but the game "commands" like moving or training units.

What the host does in addition to that is manage the network connections to the individual players and e.g. letting them know when someone disconnects. Therefore as soon as the host leaves, the clients are cut off from each other, can't communicate, and the match is closed for everybody.

 

1 hour ago, guerringuerrin said:

Maybe it would be good to have a short grace period before a disconnection counts as a loss. For example, during the first two minutes of the game, if someone disconnects, it wouldn’t count as a loss, since it’s unlikely that the player left because they were losing.

With the proposed behavior, the disconnected player wouldn't lose anyway, as long as the other player(s) wait for him to come back.

1 hour ago, guerringuerrin said:

Each player could have, for example, up to five minutes to reconnect to the game. This would give them a fair chance to resume, while also avoiding situations where the remaining player is forced to finish the match alone just to secure the win.

The offline timer could continue running even while the game is paused.

Could work I think, but might not be necessary. The problematic case is when clients leave when they're about to lose... then it shouldn't take the host too long to finish it anyway since they were about to win already, no? Depends on the victory condition, though.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

I'm just thinking the victory behavior should not change for the host/client. 

[Vantha]

1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

I'm just thinking the victory behavior should not change for the host/client. 

Ideally, yes, but I don't really see a way around it, since the client should be given the chance to reconnect, which isn't an option for the host.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

3 minutes ago, Vantha said:

Ideally, yes, but I don't really see a way around it, since the client should be given the chance to reconnect, which isn't an option for the host.

Host migration. 

 

or

 

Dedicated Server. (lol, yes pl0x)

[Vantha]

1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Host migration. 

 

or

 

Dedicated Server. (lol, yes pl0x)

Both of these would solve that, yes.

But I personally wouldn't mind too much if the host was treated more harshly than the client, as @guerringuerrinsaid they have more responsibility already and the main thing is that either side can't ruin the game.

[guerringuerrin]

3 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Host migration. 

 

or

 

Dedicated Server. (lol, yes pl0x)

IMHO, that would be a more consistent long-term solution. However, considering the technical challenges involved in implementing it, I don’t think it’s a bad idea to add this functionality in the meantime.

(Correct me if I'm wrong but) It should be simpler to implement, would address a current need, and would also reduce the workload for the people who have to review replays in the Rating Disputes thread.