Forums
-
Who's Online 2 Members, 0 Anonymous, 87 Guests (See full list)
-
Latest updates
-
-
Newest Posts
-
By real_tabasco_sauce · Posted
I am most concerned about random maps. Skirmishes and scenarios are more responsible for being "pretty" imo, so if those should be reduced to ~40 maps of the upmost quality, I would be fine with it. With random maps, gameplay comes before beauty, so I'd hate to see good maps get junked because they look bad. You will notice with my very first post taking aim at river archipelago, I made a fan of this map upset. Personally, I think its better to keep these seldom-used random maps in the game unless they are truly redundant like Kerala. Well they already are in the options. With the quick-play mode, I meant to instead put a selection of the best maps into the limelight for new users to quickly get a taste of cool looking maps. Well, I'd argue not every random map needs an update. While I can only try to make maps pretty, I can definitely make them more enjoyable and balanced. -
I feel like this would be a good feature to have as there is no way to show players results of team games. It would be fun and a lot more competitive if there was a leaderboard system just like how it is for 1v1s. I also think all games should be recorded so you can track how much you've won and lost overall as well as potential other stats such as total kills, champs made etc., regardless of whether it is rated or not, similar to a lot of other multiplayer games. Currently, such feature is only available for 1v1 rated games but most players, especially good ones, just play team games most of the time and there is nothing to show their skill. It would encourage a more competitive environment and would just be a great additional features to the game. -
-
Probably anywhere between 10-100MB for 100 maps? The random ones are often very light, almost half of it could be the preview image for some. If the game is 50MB lighter it's great, but I'll also tend to have nostalgia for maps I never played or played 3 times at max (aka the sunk cost fallacy) -
Eh. One requires a player to figure out mods exist, that a mod for maps specially exists, how to download/install mods, and them for the player to actually do all that, including determining its worth the hassle, etc. The other just requires them to do filters on the map selection screen. From experience, I can tell you players often don’t play maps that aren’t included in the base game even when they’re told the downloadable maps are good (see badsou maps experience before they were in com mod). This is pretty compelling if true. I can’t comment on specific numbers without seeing them but I have a hard time believing the additional maps actually take up much space/additional bandwidth. If I’m wrong and this is a real bursen then I agree with you Stan. Do we actually have any reason to believe these random YouTube videos drive any growth in the player base? I don’t pay much attention to them but it seems like every time I see one it is from a YouTuber with a few dozen subscribers and the 0AD video also gets just a few dozen views. Those type of videos aren’t leading player growth. I imagine most growth comes organically from someone googling “games like AOE” and from word of mouth. -
By Lion.Kanzen · Posted
Most people put the first one that appears in their language. -
By Lion.Kanzen · Posted
I'm going to have a heart attack. "Variados". That's like adding variety and varied. It's like the scenario and skirmish maps aren't varied.
-
