replay serie, mostly 3v3

[Feldfeld]

I'll give 6 replays that were played in the start of a22. Enjoy !

 

2v3 skirm cav in hunt map.7z

2v3 : Feldfeld, merlin1 vs Pretension (JC), Chronical, echotangoecho. Map : African plains

This game, a bit imbalanced shows the strentg of skirm cav when massed in such a hunt map.

 

3v3 Arctic summer trade map.7z

3v3 : Feldfeld, Emperior, kjager vs Pretension (JC), Grugnas, Chronical. Map : Arctic summer

Seems like Arctic summer is confirmed as a tradespam map, as there is few wood. If i recall well, there is wood treasure at the start, but this time treasures were disabled.

 

4v4 skirm cav in hunt map, and leaving.7z

4v4 : Feldfeld, merlin1, Uran238cz, realNoobNoob vs Grugnas, kjager, yunk2,  Pretension (JC). Map : African plains

Shows once more the importance of skirm cav in this map (and the weakness of spear cav civs in early and middle game in such maps). The game ended after some ppl leaved, and couldn't be replaced (is that possible with the use of STUN to host ? Or i just gave wrong ip ?). So don't be surprised with a major suicide, and a resignation that seems at first sight not justified.

 

2v2 ele stealing.7z

2v2 : Emperior, Feldfeld vs Dizaka, Emperior. Map : Mainland

With the accuracy rework, elephants are easier to hunt. They were even called "food treasures that follow you home". It becomes important to try to steal as much as possible. Elephants are crucial and decide the games they're in.

 

3v3 strength of skirmisher cavalry.7z

3v3 : reek (ragnar), temple, mapkoc vs ITRELLES1, chrstgr, Feldfeld. Map : Frontier

This replay shows the strength (OPness ?) of skirmisher cav rush in hunt map. If they're massed enough early game, what can stop them ?

 

3v3 army composition.7z

3v3 : reek (ragnar), mapkoc, chrstgr vs Feldfeld, _jr_, ITRELLES1. Map : Frontier

I called this replay like this, because i think that gauls have a very weak late game army composition, and that now they're one of the weakest civs.

 

As always, you can download all replays in a pack : pack.7z.

This post may not respect the rules of the subforum, but i would find it pretty boring to create a thread for each replays i want to post, so i made it like this. I won't do it again if i'm asked not to.

[Reek]

Not so op with gauls haha

[fcxSanya]

10 hours ago, Feldfeld said:

The game ended after some ppl leaved, and couldn't be replaced (is that possible with the use of STUN to host ? Or i just gave wrong ip ?).

The proper (automatic and reliable) way to connect with STUN is via lobby. I assume currently the lobby doesn't allow other people to fill the deserted player slots in running games expecting the original players to return (rejoin)? @elexis is this the case? If this is the issue here, then I guess we may provide some way for host to mark deserted player slots as vacant and allow other people to join them from the lobby.

Regarding manually sharing the IP -- it depends on the network configuration:
a. if you're behind a port-forwarded (or autoconfigured via UPnP) router, then STUN doesn't affect anything and you can share your external IP + port as before
b. if you're behind a full-cone NAT (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_address_translation#Methods_of_translation) and an external endpoint was established / discovered via STUN, you can share it instead, people should be able to connect
c. if you're behind an address- or port-restricted NAT, you have to perfrom a connection negotiation phase with a peer, which is at least inconvenient to do manually
d. finally, if you're behind a symmetric NAT, with the current implementation you shouldn't be able to host in the first place (which is apparently not the case in your case)

10 hours ago, Feldfeld said:

This post may not respect the rules of the subforum, but i would find it pretty boring to create a thread for each replays i want to post, so i made it like this. I won't do it again if i'm asked not to.

I expressed my opinion on this subject in the a21 topic:

and it stays the same:
I think the replay sharing process is already inconvenient enough -- you have to have a forum account, know about this subforum existence, be able to locate the replays, upload and describe them here. Ideally it should be (I hopefully in future it will be) just a button in the summary screen with all the match details gathered automatically requiring only an optional hand-written comment.

So if you are going over all this trouble and it's convenient to share a replay pack instead of single ones, it sounds perfectly fine for me. If someone has a different opinion -- let's discuss. If you are concerned by the wording in the rules topic let's either rephrase it (after @Itms' approval of course) or just consider it a recommendation with common-sense-justified deviations allowed.

[Itms]

1 hour ago, fcxSanya said:

If you are concerned by the wording in the rules topic let's either rephrase it (after @Itms' approval of course) or just consider it a recommendation with common-sense-justified deviations allowed.

That's not a big deal, just share the replays as you prefer (the really important rules are the ones about being nice to each other).

I only gave the one-topic rule as a recommendation, in order to attract people. Personally I'd be more interested about opening a topic called "3v3 Arctic Summer - Trade Overwhelming" (because the map is cool, or I want to learn how to trade efficiently) than an uninformative "replay serie, mostly 3v3" (no offense). That may just be personal taste

[elexis]

14 hours ago, fcxSanya said:

I assume currently the lobby doesn't allow other people to fill the deserted player slots in running games expecting the original players to return (rejoin)? @elexis is this the case? If this is the issue here, then I guess we may provide some way for host to mark deserted player slots as vacant and allow other people to join them from the lobby.

That is the case. The host (NetServer.cpp OnAuthenticate) expects clients to have the same playername in order to rejoin/replace a specific playerslot. There are some catches when implementing a player-replacement feature:

• We have the list of players and their online/offline state in the lobby, but not for IP-based games.
• The session and summary GUI page will have to take the new name system into account.
• The playernames are saved in the replay file. We would have to create a new simulation command to change the playername. (Guess we can ignore getting the full list of players that have played in a specific playerslot in case someone killed 0AD with force and otherwise save that list to metadata.json)
• The host should confirm that the candidate should be able to replace a player.

15 hours ago, fcxSanya said:

I think the replay sharing process is already inconvenient enough -- you have to have a forum account, know about this subforum existence, be able to locate the replays, upload and describe them here. Ideally it should be (I hopefully in future it will be) just a button in the summary screen with all the match details gathered automatically requiring only an optional hand-written comment.

Dunno if it's that inconvenient. Uploading and downloading stuff automatically is convenient - however it misses some features like discussing replays, quoting, text formatting, linking to other topics and so forth. So we would end up reimplementing a forum. Perhaps a replay upload button could create a forum topic though.

Automatic taking of screenshots would also come in handy for the replay menu. Also might want to add some security checks when implementing up/downloading features to the game.

There's also a ticket around for adding a textfield and a replay-rating field (0 to 5 stars) at the end of replays, since that's the time when the memory of the replay is still fresh and people recall most interesting details. This would allow sorting and filtering the replay list by interesting replays and reading what happened in that replay long after it was recorded.