You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

CTW NetCampaign
Moderated by alincarpetman

Hop to:    
Welcome! You are not logged in. Please Login or Register.60 replies, Sticky
Rise of Nations Heaven » Forums » CTW NetCampaign » Suggestions & Bug Reports
Bottom
Topic Subject:Suggestions & Bug Reports
« Previous Page  1 2 3  Next Page »
One_Dead_Angel
Seraph in Absentia
(id: One_Dead_Villy)
posted 10-24-05 04:44 AM EDT (US)         
Please post your suggestions and Bug Reports Here!

Thanks

AuthorReplies:
Diveloperz
Member
posted 10-26-05 06:35 PM EDT (US)     1 / 60       
How about merging the these identical topics into one? It's rather tedious to keep track of them all, especially with this weird CMS.... Ah well I'll live.

On a technical level, everything looks good so far.


EDIT: Actually, something regarding the rules...:

Quote:

Disconnections: If you disconnect you will forfeit the game (count as a loss for the one disconnecting). If a player disconnects before or during the initial start (that is within the 1'st minute of game launch, and fails to enter the game essentually) the game does not count against the player but participants should come back to the lobby as soon as possible to restart. If for any reason the player is unable to connect properly on the 2nd try (or as long as the opponents agree to keeping trying but a 2nd attempt must be afforded as common courtesy), then the dropper is considered to have forfeited, and victory is awarded to the other player. This may sound harsh but too many arguments can arise from disconnections. If we are brought in to settle a despute, Please provide a recorded game if possible and post in the RONH CTW Netcampaign Forum. We will then try to resolve it. If there is no recorded game as proof we will generally leave the map status as the status quo and cancel that particular challenge result.


This creates a problem. Since RoN uses UDP, disconnections frequent. I understand that there's no good solution to the disconnection problem since one can't tell if the disconnection was intentional or not, but the above solution leaves a lot of room for abuse and dispute. Not only is there no way to tell if a disconnection was intention, but in a two-player game there's no way to decide which player "disconnected". A connection cannot be established without the participation of both systems, so when the connection is broken it seems counterintuitive to say that either "disconnected". RoN multiplayer offers no output that could be used to determine which player was responsible; it uses UDP and doesn't investigate a lost connection by i.e. attempting to connect to a different server.

[This message has been edited by Diveloperz (edited 10-27-2005 @ 00:39 AM).]

One_Dead_Angel
Seraph in Absentia
(id: One_Dead_Villy)
posted 10-26-05 11:41 PM EDT (US)     2 / 60       
done
PlayForFun
Member
posted 10-26-05 11:58 PM EDT (US)     3 / 60       
What happens in the following scenario?

A challenges B on a land map. A initially picks Rome. B sees A picks Rome, and decided to pick British. A sees B picks British, and decides to pick Aztec. Now, B sees A picked Aztec, decides to pick Rome again...

Will there be rules to guard against this?

One_Dead_Angel
Seraph in Absentia
(id: One_Dead_Villy)
posted 10-27-05 00:28 AM EDT (US)     4 / 60       
its hard for us to police what people do in a situation like this. if this happens. you can report it, and if an individual is always doing this (with many people) to disrupt play then we will probably take action against the individual.

let just be reasonable...in this case... if the situation gets into a circular loop of civ chasing. then the "official rule" is (and this will have to be on honor system cause we cant be there to see what everyone is doing in every game). If a civ chase happens then you have to go back and stick with your original choice.

Diveloperz
Member
posted 10-27-05 00:42 AM EDT (US)     5 / 60       
Eh, I was editing my old post since the forum wouldn't allow me to double post but there has been a number of replies in the time I was editing. Please consider the problem mentioned above in my edited post.^^ Thanks.

Regarding the civ chase, a plausible solution would be to turn on tournament play, pick civs, then turn tournament play off and keep the chosen civs. You can always take a screenie right after it is turned off and the nations are revealed if you're worried about abuse. Not that I expect anyone to abuse this of course....

[This message has been edited by Diveloperz (edited 10-27-2005 @ 00:45 AM).]

One_Dead_Angel
Seraph in Absentia
(id: One_Dead_Villy)
posted 10-27-05 00:51 AM EDT (US)     6 / 60       
more about civ chasing

--ya we can turn on tourney mode for civ selection. ...as far as abuse. if the person pics a black listed civ, then the challenge will not count (and probably the defender will drop or report the incident or dispute it), and we can look into it, and take appropriate action. so i will dicuss this with the other staff...and probbaly adopt your suggestion.

- otherwise...maybe if we leave it open, then people are only allow ONE change, regardless.

more about disconnects

--- not really sure there is any other way to do this. the protocol we have in the rules right now works for other ladders (and as i said while severe PREVENTS more abuses then not). we can amend the rule in the case of apparent disconnects... where it was unintentional...that if both parties agree, they can continue from recording. but if that cant be agreed then we'd have to just take it as a forfeit by the one disconnected. we can try to resolve the situation maybe if someone can show they were ahead and winning when they disconnected...but that is more easier to abuse because if its close its hard to tell really who is really ahead or if a come back win is possible. we've got a few weeks of sign ups left, so if someone has a better suggestion then what we have already on the rules. i can consider it.

[This message has been edited by One_Dead_Angel (edited 10-27-2005 @ 01:03 AM).]

One_Dead_Angel
Seraph in Absentia
(id: One_Dead_Villy)
posted 10-27-05 01:08 AM EDT (US)     7 / 60       
i was also toying with restricting player color too (attacker has to always pick red) so as to help us check the recordings easier. but then i didnt want to keep people from picking their "lucky" color or something.. any objections?
PlayForFun
Member
posted 10-27-05 02:27 AM EDT (US)     8 / 60       
The problem is this doesn't happen with one individual. There are two. Sticking with the original choice will mean that the first person to pick the nation will be at an unfair advantage (because the second person can pick a nation which has benefits against his). To implement the suggestion that "to stick to the original civ in a circular civ chase" fairly, then we need an additional rule that:

the attacker (or the defender) needs to pick the nation first.

Perhaps would it be better if we just require both players to pick random nations?

One_Dead_Angel
Seraph in Absentia
(id: One_Dead_Villy)
posted 10-27-05 03:53 AM EDT (US)     9 / 60       
no i want people to pick so their skill can be used in that way...
since the defender can use any civ and attackers cant...i would lean towards defender picks 1st and the attacker follows.
PlayForFun
Member
posted 10-27-05 06:01 AM EDT (US)     10 / 60       
Thanks ODA. I'd like to have some more clarifications.

So let say A being the first one to register ends up having 2 provinces. He can initiate 2 challenges every day while the late comers only 1 challenge per day?

Bearing in mind that people are from all over the world, if A challenges B, who (A or B or admin?) will decide the play times?


heyboy
Member
posted 10-27-05 07:28 AM EDT (US)     11 / 60       
I want a rule against laggers.
I am sick of playing against laggers, and I do often resign the game just because of that even if I know I almost have won the game.
Many people (when they're loosing) just starts downloading large files while playing RoN just to lag out their opponents.
One_Dead_Angel
Seraph in Absentia
(id: One_Dead_Villy)
posted 10-27-05 04:51 PM EDT (US)     12 / 60       
- about time zone differences... i'll leave it to the players to schedule what time is best. forcing them to a particular time wouldnt work any better for scheduling. There is 48 hours to resolve it, so there should be enough time to accomodate two people's schedule for the length of the tourney. If we need to make the lock up period longer then we will consider it (which is actually the "normal" pace we want), but for the tourney I want a more abbreviated quicker pace do we can get done well before Christmass.


- BUT i would suggest all CTW tourney games go to a particular room so as to be easier to see who is who.


- and yes if the person ends up with more then 1 territory initially they may have more then one person they can challenge. BUT remember people can be challenged from multiple places too, and defend their own territories. so dont over schedule yourself. Remember also while u can challenge more then one person, a territory may already be under challenge by someone else, so they have to play it out before u get a chance to challenge, as well, you can only challenge the same person once per challenge, so you can attack them on two territories they own. You'd have to do one 1st then resolve then challenge after. Dont just win the Battle of Stamford Bridge, and loose at Hastings.


- as far as laggers. I'll have to think about that because sometimes people say I not all laggers are really the ones who are lagging. I'm on cable modem and occasionally some people say i lag, but from my perspective its them thats lagging. The true problem is probably just both people's problem. So it maybe unfair whatever we do. But unless we let people play it out...not sure what else u can do to resolve territory challenges. Purhaps like anything else, if I get complaints from multiple people about the same person, then we'd might have to do something about a particular person and have to have them withdraw from the contest. Now if they are loosing, and just downloading to disrupt people's game then eventually we'd hear people complain about that person, or just grin and bare it, and kick their asses since they are loosing anyways.

[This message has been edited by One_Dead_Angel (edited 10-27-2005 @ 04:57 PM).]

Diveloperz
Member
posted 10-27-05 11:34 PM EDT (US)     13 / 60       

Quote:

more about disconnects

--- not really sure there is any other way to do this. the protocol we have in the rules right now works for other ladders (and as i said while severe PREVENTS more abuses then not). we can amend the rule in the case of apparent disconnects... where it was unintentional...that if both parties agree, they can continue from recording. but if that cant be agreed then we'd have to just take it as a forfeit by the one disconnected. we can try to resolve the situation maybe if someone can show they were ahead and winning when they disconnected...but that is more easier to abuse because if its close its hard to tell really who is really ahead or if a come back win is possible. we've got a few weeks of sign ups left, so if someone has a better suggestion then what we have already on the rules. i can consider it.


Sorry, forgot all about the alternative.... I agree there is no good solution, but I think we can do better. I think it would be best to default to not counting the game at all (either re-played or just counted as a null gane, whichever) unless one player was clearly winning and they wish to contest it. Like I said it's not a great solution, but with the current rule there would be no plausible way to determine which player "dropped", since both players would see the other one dropping in their instance of the game, thus the outcome of a dropped game with the current rule would have nothing to do with who's fault the drop was nor who was winning. I think we should either not count dropped games at all, or decide who won based on score (assuming the game gets reasonably far), or default to a null game but allow players to contest it if it's clear they were winning.
One_Dead_Angel
Seraph in Absentia
(id: One_Dead_Villy)
posted 10-28-05 01:56 AM EDT (US)     14 / 60       
i would say if both agree... 1st try continue from recording

if not possible or less then 3 minutes into game, then play again from start...but at 3 minutes some people can start attacking on some level even if its a nuisance raid, but ive seen newbs drop even with that provocation (and they should be punished for that).

so maybe restart if less then 2 minutes if both agreed else if not possible then maybe highest score before drop ..but that could still be abused and who know really what can happen...i dont want to allow people who are loosing just drop on purpose to avoid a lost...so it cant just not count.

[This message has been edited by One_Dead_Angel (edited 10-28-2005 @ 02:02 AM).]

Diveloperz
Member
posted 10-28-05 11:57 AM EDT (US)     15 / 60       
I know what you mean, but, with the current rule, how can you determine who dropped? The current rule is not only open to abuse, but it's also open to accident. Disconnections are natural in a game like RoN, not always intentional.
War
Member
posted 10-28-05 01:03 PM EDT (US)     16 / 60       
Div is right here. in a 1v1, when there is a drop/disconnect, both players get a screen up saying that the other player dropped.

Score is too blunt to judge winner. Hopefully drops will be rare, and in most cases the players will just agree a replay/continue from save (does that work?) so maybe the rec game can go to a judge who can decide if there is a clear advantage on the few cases that an agreement can't be reached.

As a simple example, at 3 minutes a pure boomer could have twice his opponants score, but when 5HI turn up at his cap and he doesn't even have mil1, he is dead, pretty obvious who should get the game if there is a drop at that point.

One_Dead_Angel
Seraph in Absentia
(id: One_Dead_Villy)
posted 10-28-05 02:13 PM EDT (US)     17 / 60       
yes i realize that. that is why i say score is hard to use as judgement unless maybe its fairly late in the game. cause anything could happen if we look at a situation too early (score or even just tactical situation,which could be a real judgement call sometimes, so i want something in "black and white" like score or whatever that is a metric we can use, instead of debating about a situation).

continuing from recording is probably the fairest and most preferred. but one never knows if one can sucessfully re-enter the game that way, its never worked for me (well only once, but the game dropped again a while after). so its still dicey.

i was thinking score maybe ok, if the game has gone on past 20 minutes.

Schwiemer
Member
posted 10-29-05 02:49 PM EDT (US)     18 / 60       
maybe you could make scenario maps for each country or whatever xD

or find some way to put this stuff in the campaigns , that be awesome

One_Dead_Angel
Seraph in Absentia
(id: One_Dead_Villy)
posted 10-29-05 04:32 PM EDT (US)     19 / 60       
ya i thought of that...but that would be way in the future cause thats a lot of work
Phillistine
Member
posted 10-30-05 10:34 AM EDT (US)     20 / 60       
Country maps would need territories defined and traced out on them. Doable but would take a lil while. Meanwhile we have other CTW Maps from the game we can play with so it seems more likely we would use those first.

My Karma ran over my Dogma

AoEH | EEH | RoNH | IndividualsCAN

War
Member
posted 10-30-05 11:06 AM EDT (US)     21 / 60       
Actually, the problem is bigger than you think. You would have to take into account where the attack was coming from.

eg:

Attack Amazon from Llanos=Amazon Rainforest
Attack Amazon from West Africa=Atlantic Sea powers (maybe EmW)

Phillistine
Member
posted 10-30-05 01:20 PM EDT (US)     22 / 60       
That would all be set when the map was made, which territories could attack which etc, just as it is now so it would be fine if defined at the start.

My Karma ran over my Dogma

AoEH | EEH | RoNH | IndividualsCAN

One_Dead_Angel
Seraph in Absentia
(id: One_Dead_Villy)
posted 10-30-05 02:50 PM EDT (US)     23 / 60       
we could of course have a fan designed MP scenario map contest...and have a world map where people can use these
Phillistine
Member
posted 10-30-05 03:28 PM EDT (US)     24 / 60       
Which was the idea I had for AoEH but here we have more designers into MP maps.

My Karma ran over my Dogma

AoEH | EEH | RoNH | IndividualsCAN

bgk
Member
posted 11-01-05 09:23 AM EDT (US)     25 / 60       
Is this the right place to discuss the rules? I think some of them are seriously flawed.

1. You can't gain anything from repelling an attack. What will happen is that everybody will challenge as many neighbors as possible (the weaker ones first) and try to accept incoming challenges in the latest possible moment. Because everybody will do that not many games will be played.

2. How do you claim a win if your opponent doesn't show up? There seems to be no rule for this although it happens quite often in the MoR leagues and the Infidels CTW tournament. The defender might try this, see above.

3. Or this: Do not agree on a time to play the game. With participants all over the world, it could be a major problem to find a suitable time to meet.

Considering 1-3, I think it will be difficult to catch the player you want to attack (while not being caught online by your attackers).

Two suggestions:

1. Remove the prizes, especially the money. ;-)

2. Instead of blacklisting nations, prescribe them according to the countries involved.

« Previous Page  1 2 3  Next Page »
You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Hop to:    

Rise of Nations Heaven | HeavenGames