All Activity

I was thinking something like this would be an elegant way to achieve this effect:

you know its my believe that those who are not shy to insult others in a personal way below even the lowest standards for decency should not cry when someone is satirically mocking them back for their arrogant attitude in the game

Oh I agree with no political discussion, people have their own opinions, and usually it turns nasty (which is why it gets banned) but that other thing was nasty too. A little bit of joking is ok if it's in good faith. (Like the borg drink joke) but that other thing seemed a bit mean spirited.

One is related to the game, one is not?

"Someone(s)" on the mod team generally dislike any political discussion. They've also silently killed the "Political Smalltalk" thread, although I don't think there ever was a need for a moderator intervention nor any breach of forum rules.

I think I'm going to have to agree, how come mentioning covid is wrong, but making fun of a player isn't?

What if instead of a building focusing on only one person, it focuses on a few like 2 or 3?

Pr for ruins: https://github.com/TheShadowOfHassen/0-ad-history-encyclopedia-mod/pull/146

So is it a realism argument? Missed arrows damage nearby units. To be fair, the accuracy pretty effectively accomplishes this, especially for forts. Also, the natural movement of units often spreads damage over a handful of units, as the "closest unit" changes often. If the player notices this (not easy, to be fair) keeping that unit in motion will dramatically improve its survival and even decrease the effectiveness of the building arrows. So there is ideally a nice back and forth should a player use the manual targeting like this. I suppose a max number of attackers value could be used sort of like something @wowgetoffyourcellphone proposed a while ago. IMO this approach is heavy-handed. One idea I brough up on overkill discussions was this: add a new range query for determining the closest unit with a flexible degree of rounding. In these large scale battles mentioned by @Feldfeld, what is currently "the closest unit" could be 2 to 5 units, or maybe more. @Stan` is there already some sort of tiebreaking mechanism when two targets are exactly the same distance?

if you think that some cherry-picked games out of 1000's is an empirical proof ... (well i won't even try to answer this) I would rather say that a dedicated channel confirms my fame (haters gonna hate) Let alone, the guy who posted that lost maybe 20-40 1v1 with me Also, its funny how such post, that goes against rules of the forum, is tolerated my Stan whilst me trying to establish the truth on the scamdemic for the best of humanity is received by censorship (once again , haters gonna hate)

1* join 1v1 game 2* ask for rated 3* wait the game is launched 4* ALT+F4 5*

This is a very interesting and intriguing mod, I couldn't pass it by. I wish I could play with Petra. Or will such an opportunity still be provided?

I drink the tears of my opponents

In 1v1 rated games it is a typical behavior that when the host is about to loose, he/she closes the game so his/her rank is not downgraded. A simple solution I see to this problem is to just consider the non-host player as the winner when the connection to the server is lost. I am aware that the connection could break because of technical issues, but I would say that if you are hosting a game it is your responsibility to have a decent connection. Also, I believe that >95 % of the times that there is a server disconnection in 1v1 rated games is because the host is loosing the match, and not because of technical reasons. I know there is this "ratings and offense disputes thread" in the forum, but this does not prevent this from happening, as we see in practice.

If we cut off the ability for winning players to flare, then we should do the same for players without any teammates to see the flares.

Yep. Either a ratio, or a max of two or something. I think arrows can still miss and hit something else, which is probably the reason of the lags @maroder noticed when there are many enemies.

Imo that would be an improvement but I still also would like to see deviation with arrows being able to hurt a different unit than the target, not sure if that's possible without hurting performance

So random arrows but there can be manual targeting for some arrows? Sounds worth trying to me

Can't we have a system were depending on buildings, up to max n arrows can be focused on a unit ? That number n would be the max between the value in the template and a ratio of the current number of arrows with the max number of arrows that can be shot from that building.

Currently 0 A.D. has quite high scale fights and I find it absurd that all the fortress garrison would focus a single unit to oblivion. All arrows follow the same path, it is ugly and hard to tell what is happening, is the fortress effectiveness reduced because of overkill, or missed arrows? I would also find it not nice having to keep valuable units out of a fight under fortress from fear of having them focused with all arrows by the enemy without drawbacks. Not more than exactly one unit is damaged in a volley. It's weird that all defenders perfectly coordinate and are perfectly accurate (not as in "the unit will be hit", but the arrow follows exactly the intended path). There is no deviation, there is not a single other unit that will be hurt by a missed arrow. Meanwhile, random arrows are spread into the enemy army, for me that is a behavior that makes more sense with a strong fortification in a large scale fight. Arguably, they were spread too perfectly, which is also unnatural in the other direction, but I still prefer it over the alternative. And there are the concerns about rushes mentioned by @chrstgtr already.

My favorite sea map was the Caribbean from age of empires III. Everyone would start on a separate island and there'd be another island with treasure on it.

We need to surrect a clone of @Stan` to improve the ship models. 1. Reduce their size by about 20%. This requires their animations to be re-exported. But would definitely help with pathfinding! 2. Ramming Ship animations. Something akin to the battering ram actor moving back and forth, while the entity itself doesn't need to move. The whole affect only needing to occur in the animation and no need for new unit motion code. 3. The Roman and Carthaginian Quinquiremes are pretty ugly compared to the Ptolemaic one. Probably just need an all new model.

This kind of attitude prevents improvement. Siege Towers are pretty weird at the moment, but because some folks have managed to use that weirdness to their advantage we shouldn't improve them?

At least one good random map for naval play is sorely needed. Something good enough that it could be played semi-regularly in rated. There are some great skirmish maps, but they are mostly limited to 1v1 or 3 players.

i hope he doesnt change siege towers atleast.