All Activity

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.

sure, why not

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.

From my experience ships will aggro on anything enemy, and have been for ~all versions; this includes chasing, so if you don't want your ships to move (because you're currently repairing them or not to get lured) you have to put them on standground.

We have maps that are functional enough. The most popular land map is mainland because it is just wide open space for battles. That more or less exists for naval maps. Ships are just clunky to move, which isn't very fun. Naval battles also don't lend themselves to reinforcements which make the battles frustrating because it is either one short winner take all battle or it is a never ending battle where the player that wins the first fight becomes weak and cannot cross the remainder of the sea and land troops before fresh enemy reinforcements can arrive to wipe out the low health (and not repaired) victor from the first fight. Right now, ships are most fun when their primarily used as water-based siege that fight against land units/buildings.

A solid map for sea would help. Currently I think we have one that is needed for naval battles

Apparently it's been so long since any of us have played a game with ships (and for good reason) that we are all forgetting how the AI works.

AFAIK, ships will currently try and aggro enemy ships. Yeah the only practical difference is that the Building AI is a stream of arrows (or a multi-arrow blast :D) that can be done while moving.

So the overwork rakes out BuildingAI and replaces it with UnitAI? That's all fine and good (and I agree with most of what you say). But because UnitAI chases, your ships may move without you doing anything. That can be problematic with how clunky ships are (ships getting stuck behind other ships, ships getting lured, etc.). Non-random BuildingAI wouldn't have that problem because ships would only move when you tell them to, which also means that an enemy can't exploit it as easily. UnitAI and non-random BuildingAI aren't really that different from each other aside from the chase aspect. Long overdue.

You can just have separate behavior for siege towers and buildings.

ok so basically unitAI is responsible for just about all the entities, so ships and siege towers have UnitAI. BuildingAI is responsible for the building arrows. in @wowgetoffyourcellphone's work, they no longer have anything to do with buildingAI, and instead behave like infantry, cavalry etc. By default they will target the first enemy they see unless you give a specific target, just like regular units. I think the ship classes do an excellent job on emphasizing ship positioning: Keeping vulnerable ships protected, flanking with ram ships, massing arrow ships together, raiding fish with scout ships. The main thing is that ship gameplay won't be a total snooze fest XD.