Jump to content

Dancing

Community Members
  • Content Count

    9
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About Dancing

  • Rank
    Tiro
  1. Well than I will just host my own lobby, if it makes you feel better about your lobby.
  2. Well, whatever, how can one host a server? Leper just banned me, so I wanna just host my own server how does one go about doing so? I didn't realize the server is PG 13, and I wanna have a server for adults.
  3. I take that as an insult, because I believe I am revealing a legitimatly unbalanced feature of a civilization and your response to my protest is "oh he is just a newb, that's why he lost." That's disrespectful and insulting. Because 1) we didn't lose, and 2) I was disattisfied with that match, because I thought the design philosphy behind 0 a.d. was formations and unit composition and economic management matter more than just pure APM. I respected that idea, and outlook. I think what you can do with the Romans now not only spits in the face of that very idea, but is just poor game design either in oversight or by accident.
  4. I explained in my previous post, but the romans can build those walls quicker than they can torn down, I had three armies, one in his base, one in yellows and one at home, when I went to move my armys back to support the one at my base the pathfinding got them stuck in some trees, however my ally was there supporting me. my opponent only had a handful of units, and they were able to do that, without a civic center without any houses... I mean Mythos_Ruler if this is how you want the Romans to be used, then let me know so I can start doing this to others.
  5. Funny story Gentlemen, this was a 2v2 romans and iberians vs romans and iberians... the gauls were not present at this battle.
  6. Which is something I left AOK for, I hated the idea of being tower rushed, because it was something that could be done, but it wasn't tactical, it was cheese. I enjoy the non-cheese aspect of this game and I think this roman ability of enemy territory building is just that... cheese. I like the idea of the territorys mattering and formations mattering, not APM towerushing or APM archer rushing which is where the curret meta for AOK lies at.
  7. He as in another player, this isn't a court and he isn't on trial. So I won't be naming him. Second I appreciate that some things have to be historically accurate but where do the developers draw the line between something that can be exploited because players are using it in a way that disrupts gameplay. I mean why design the territory idea in the first place if all the Roman player has to do is spam these walls in a way that costs him little? draws them all over the map, around your base, in a way that makes moving units impossible. Now I understand this may be the exception to the rule because we played on a close map. However this player has indeed used the Roman ability to build in enemy territory to tower rush. With roman walls costing 80 wood, he could build 10 little wall turrets here and there, that aren't easy to take down. So for 800 wood I gain an awesome ability that allows me to virtually control large portions of the map and disrupt my opponent from collecting other resources? I mean surely making the decision to limit the romans from building in enemy territory is historically inaccurate, but (it's a video game... you don't just go from a village to city in 45 minutes). I don't think it's entirely unfair to have the romans be limited to their own territory + neutral territory. That is still an extrodinary advantage. No other civ could do that?
  8. It really wasn't, and although he was quite civil about it, this happened after his last civic center was taken down, and he had only about a dozen soldiers. My ally green spent the remainder of the match taking them down, while I went and killed yellow. After we killed yellow, those walls were still there even with 15 siege engines working on them for 15+ minutes. That's not awesome, that's game disrupting. He even admitted so. He did this afterwards, with like 12 soldiers, Romans build those walls very fast, and the pathfinding is very @#$%les so a large army doesn't move as fast and my siege couldn't move back across the map. I would also like to point out that I believe something need to be done about players hiding villagers and then leaving a game. It's very annoying to spend 15-20 minutes hunting down every last unit of your opponents. At some point a timer needs to set in when the last production building is destroyed. I think what would be fair is to nerf this roman ability of building in enemy territory to building in neutral territory, I think that would powerful enough, I also think the cost and speed of building these walls needs to be looked at. If you guys don't want to do that, then that is fine, but then why have such a powerful ability with no solid counter to, that would make romans the only civ that can tower rush. Which this person does use the romans for, I've watched him do it in a few games, he doesn't build walls... he builds the turrets from the walls. I hope that's not the intended use of them.
  9. I'll fill this out a little more, why I think they need it, but they really shouldn't be allowed to build in enemy territory. I think neutral territory is fine. I also think those walls need to cost a little more... For now I am going to sleep However ponder on this image...
×
×
  • Create New...