Nice post IndieRock00, but I'm surprised that some things are understood as the "tricking" or "hacking".
For example being able to write to players in ranked matches (already said and confirmed by Mona himself);
Being able to write in rated games was possible for long months, for everyone. It has been disabled due to help from others players. Since it was hard to control, we decided that it should be disabled in rated games, so nobody can request rating refunds.
Obviously I can still do it when I want, because I AM SURE THAT I WON'T HELP in a rated game. Sending a taunt or asking a question from OBS during game is not forbidden. This is totally pointless to even mention or discuss those things. How was most of stuff in EE2 changed? By f****ng testing. If I observe players reaction regarding messages in rated games, I know if it should be re-enabled for everyone in rated games or not. It's simple.
possibility of blocking the game and providing an OOS (out of sync)
I'm usually observing game under a debugger program. It happened only 2 times during the last year, that I tweaked some value that caused the lost synchronization. The other time, OOS was issued by me to prevent points lose in a rated game, where a player was disconnected (for surprise it was TheKnight), and a game for 1 team was unfair. This way I saved time and didn't need to spend long minutes reverting rating by manual database modification. So yeah? Such a big crime that when I see problem going, trying to fix it in the easiest possible method?
has the possibility to exclude individual players during the course of the game, I repeat that I do not have the proofs, but if this is a serious and sincere discussion, Mona herself (and other players who have had this experience) will be able to confirm it;
This is a serious accusation. Do you claim that I am able to disconnect players during a multiplayer match?
1. I'm almost never hosting a game to be able to firewall certain users.
2. EE2 is a peer-to-peer game, where players have a direct connection with each other. This is why joining problems are so common.
3. How the f**k can I decide about Internet connection problems of a certain player with another player? It makes a total nonsense for a p2p game.
4. I heard accusations like this few times, and who they come from? From players who lose connection with, or without me logged in, multiple times per day. But then, when this 1 game I'm observing, it's obviously my fault!
I'm disgusted that I even have to respond to accusations like this. In my opinion, when there is no technical proof, or eventually chat logs, it should not be written public.
also the possibility of changing players during the game (which I think happened when the defendant wrote "FUCK MONA" with the wooden walls).
No, as explained in the previous posts, the wooden wall and insults were for the "forced ready".
Talking about switching players is a big hypocrisy from you:
— Added new hotkeys for players who like to cheat or city-build (available in Singleplayer mode only):
* CTRL + ALT + SHIFT + (W, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 0) = Switch the active player to player World or Slots 1-10.
— Added a new option to UP1.5 Settings: "I suffer epileptic seizures (neurological disorder)":
— Fixed an issue where Multiplayer game Observers could use nicknames of different players (without their colors) when used the "Switch the active player to player" hotkeys: CTRL + ALT + SHIFT + (W, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 0). It was caused by the new workaround for displaying correct nicknames in game playbacks, added in update 157038. Observers are able to "switch players" in unrated games, to view their amount of resources, fog of war, explored technologies, etc. This is a Server-controlled feature that might be disabled at any time for all or selected (abusive) players.
— Using the "Switch the active player to player" hotkey will not longer store the nickname of the different player in the chat messages history, in the playback file. There was a fix for this issue in update 157040, but only worked during the active game, now it should be fine when watching game recordings.
EVERYONE IS ABLE TO USE THIS FEATURE THANKS TO ME. And I'm sure you used it yourself.
Now, why do I switch during normal games? Imagine, that Observers, after switching a player could control their units, send resources or other things like this.
I'm using those things to test security patches that made this function available for all observer players.
WEHN CAN I TEST IT, IF NOT DURING GAMES? If I had bad intentions why the fuck would I add fixes for this thing with updates?
If you guys really have problems that I AM STILL IMPROVING THE GAME, and testing it, we can remove all features like this and enjoy EE2 as it was in the past. I have no problem with that, it will save a lot of my time.
Another trick of his that concerns the lobby instead is the power to change everyone present while he has to say something considered important, no evidence, I don't record games
This is getting ridiculous, really. Since February 2020, when taunts were added, I had to program a totally new anti-spam filter, that saves the translation bot (so it doesn't get blocked by google by too many requests), prevents taunts / same messages spam, etc. In case of a spam attack, the Administrator has now the power of disabling the Chat.
If I program something, I HAVE TO TEST IT SOME DAY. I used it literally 1 time, to see if it works. I did put a "joke" reason in the feedback message "Dr.MonaLisa is giving a speech, please wait until she finishes", or something like this. Everyone with IQ over 20 will understand that it's a joke reason, and the time when messages were disabled was a test. Obviously tests can happen at the suitable time (like when I really want to tell something and being listened), but for god's sake, those things are all powered by me. You know, the other unofficial Multiplayer servers have sometimes shutdown times longer than 1 week. EE2.eu for the last 5 years had NOT A SINGLE SHUTDOWN. I wasted hours programming and testing auto-restarts, including problems reporting in automated Support Chat message. Operating System (Linux) updates sometimes require server restarts, but those restarts never take longer than 2 minutes.
So seriously, you guys have the most stable multiplayer availability from all available games, and yet dare to complain about 1 minute when the chat service was disabled? Like what the hell.
But let's get to the point, there is a very special and powerful magic of it, forcing the state to ready. Here, this is really a powerful tool, is it correct to use it? it's wrong? Mona has stated several times and once again here in the discussion that this tool is used when the players are all ready and are waiting for the last player to give their ready to start the game. On the one hand it is a more than noble intent, it allows you to not waste time with players who are absent from the PC without changing their status to "observer" seriously disrespecting all the players who wait motionless in front of their PC for nothing. Obviously the game starts and that player may not actually be ready to play and find himself a game that has started a few minutes ago, so it's a ruined game and you are going to waste even more time and energy, so it was a very senseless solution.
And again. When the auto-ready-countdown function become available? 1-2 months ago. What I'm doing now? TESTING. TESTING ESPECIALLY TO SEE PSYCHOLOGICAL PLAYER'S REACTION. This feature was scheduled to be automated, on every host request, THIS IS WHY I AM FU***G TESTING IT RECENTLY. So mentioning this stuff to show as something negative from me is just ridiculous.
Besides that, it's a good idea to start discussion about the potential avaibility of this option.
In my opinion, players want to rather start a game, and enjoy 15 minutes of building, than wait in a room, stare on the monitor and spam stupid audio taunts. Players who leave computers without changing their status to Observer are very disrespectful towards all the people that are waiting. I theoretically could waste few weeks trying to implement the player-status-change feature, but after all this shit I read, and how negatively my tests are understood by players, it's not worth to waste any more minute on Multiplayer improvements.
The fact is that he took me into his custody to teach me to play better and improve my game tactics and I think he is doing a really good job (thanks) so much so that I managed to play a 30 min match against Mona, which it's not for everyone (but this is a bit off topic).
You play against me as long as I plan it, before the game even starts. Failing to win with a rush against 3-terrs/0 mili buildings boom on med pace, is not a reason to be happy, even when it took 30 mins. I'm not saying you're a bad player, but 30 minutes is not a reason to be happy, because it means nothing as long as the game goes as the opponent planned.
Anyway, thanks for your post.
I'm not angry, even if it sounds this way. It's just hard to stay calm, when positive things (testing, improving, improving security) is considered as "POWER ABUSE" from me. After all, the Minor Updates change log proves everything.
And no, I'm not going to test things alone, using virtual machines. It's much easier to test features LIVE, on the active players. If someone disagrees with this method of development, then GameRanger or some other LAN program would be very happy to take care of them.