Jump to content

Hannibal_Barca

Lobby Moderators
  • Content count

    238
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Hannibal_Barca last won the day on March 10 2017

Hannibal_Barca had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

197 Excellent

1 Follower

About Hannibal_Barca

  • Rank
    Duplicarius

Recent Profile Visitors

1,191 profile views
  1. Hannibal_Barca

    Can we agree on this?

    I'll deduce that you weren't really paying attention neither to the posts nor to the actual game itself (of which you applied to become Gameplay Developer) Friendly fire is disabled in 0 A.D.
  2. Those outposts look to be quite formidable Now we can rest assured that the sheep are protected
  3. Units can still be unloaded unto the top of the cliffs via boats, players will have to watch out for a possible attack that they can't prevent due to not being able to train ships on that side Weird I like it
  4. Hannibal_Barca

    Can we agree on this?

    Would be nice if units in formation don't go after animals Units outside of it do
  5. Hannibal_Barca

    Can we agree on this?

    Yeah I had to make you sound like an evil monstrosity to suit my purposes But I'm not going to vote opposite, not the best solution either. I know I'm not helpful, this place is one of the rare 0ad places where I can be a pest. Both of you got a point but middle ground is needed IMO
  6. Hannibal_Barca

    Can we agree on this?

    Poll choices are very biased and clearly want you to choose the view supported by the poster or be ridiculed as ignorant and stupid. And elexis has a point. As far as colonists are concerned, dangerous animals are enemies. So if you don't want units to go out of formation to kill them, the obvious solution is not to put units in formation
  7. Hannibal_Barca

    Skrimish map: Battle of Vikingland (8)

    With the new release you can load map terrain from scenario files Then you can paint it and add entities randomly But this map looks simple enough to be fully generated by a random map script
  8. Hannibal_Barca

    New quitter strategy

    Theoretically as lobby moderators we have no right, nor any intention to moderate in-game chat. While users are subject to our rules while in the multiplayer lobby, in-game the host is all-powerful and reserves the right to do anything . The exceptions to the rule are rated games and rated games only. (Game names are moderated as they appear in the lobby game list) Any in-game law enforcement is to come from persons other than lobby moderators, perhaps some Team Members would like to oversee complete chat moderation.
  9. Hannibal_Barca

    New quitter strategy

    Wrong attitude and incorrect form of application rigorous questioning = why do you want to become a mod From that question all the other sanity-related questions are derived. At least the current team is a bunch of angels This is a good idea - do something bad and then ban others because of it By the way, you don't get points by defeating an offline player.
  10. Hannibal_Barca

    New quitter strategy

    It (assuming you mean moderatorship) requires you being active almost every day for a few hours - this means being available and not afking
  11. Hannibal_Barca

    New quitter strategy

    You or any other potential candidate may apply to the proper authorities who might - after rigourous questioning - accept your application and appoint you for a designated test period after which you could be elevated to the permanent* status of Lobby Moderator. We are indeed short-staffed at the moment and could use a helping hand. * Privileges may be revoked if deemed necessary.
  12. Hannibal_Barca

    Got banned for no reason!

    @user1 has dealt with this issue so far, I will not intervene If you are telling the truth, we convey our sincere apologies. If you are not being wholly sincere, please state so and help clear this situation up
  13. Hannibal_Barca

    Kushites are too weak

    We don't have secondary attack and only a ram is weird and causes overlapping in roles That's partially what I meant
  14. Hannibal_Barca

    Kushites are too weak

    Siege towers were meant to take walls They can't. Hence the fantasy stuff They take a long time to train and aren't cheap either Never heard of ramming attack, that sounds as novel as shooting out the back wall Historically, catapults and bolt-shooters could be mounted on these engines to batter enemy walls and the units on them
  15. Hannibal_Barca

    Kushites are too weak

    Kushites had catapults in DE (I think all civs have them there) but I removed them due to the kush unit roster being too vast already And as for siege towers all civs have some kind of counter Removing attack ability while moving would be a great way to set them aside for a whole alpha, allowing them to win the title of Most Useless Unit of the Year. I'm glad someone is interested in their well-being at least. Also if you block their path with a few units they will get slowed, unless of course you just like to order units to trail behind as an honour guard Catapult spam seems a half-viable option this release so it should be ok As @elexis wanted to mention in the release announcement (but later took it out), Kushites would like to prove that there is Strength in Diversity. Nevertheless they shouldn't be given all the candy or some might cry.
×