Leaderboard

I'd like to applaud @real_tabasco_sauce for the moderation of this opinion, and endorse it as my own view. Ultimately the non-random systems seems like it will have better implications for gameplay. However its balance implications are so convoluted and far reaching that trying to implement it all at once into a larger incremental-rebalance mod is just going to scramble all the other balance goals. However, this idea of having an adjustable number or proportion of arrows, per actor, be non-random sounds very promising to me. I think it should be discussed further. I imagine the implementation would be tunable on a per-unit-class basis through unit templates. That might be your solution to the balance problems. You could walk the proportion up for each building, just until it starts to cause problems, and then wait until a compensatory adjustment can be found before going further, without ever breaking the overall balance (if it were done very cleverly). This would eventually let you transition entirely to non-random if you wanted, or find a happy middle where the gameplay objectives of non-random are achieved, but some random aiming is still present with its own beneficial effects on balance and presentation.

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

I think that looks really good. Personally, I'd recommend using a slightly different color for the dirt mound part because it is very similar to the color of the stones.

What do you guys think about this setup? Seems to me round is better than square. Also not sure where to place the steles. Could put one or more on top as well. Since most of these is organic stuff I don't see much possibilities for repetitive texture usage in the uv (despite reusing the stones), or am I missing something?

https://www.instagram.com/0ad_memes_eae/ Be sure to follow for the most nub 0 AD memes !

Also valid as a gameplay argument. I'd like my fortress to damage multiple units at a time and I even find it strange some people don't want that. That may be possible in theory but in practice I didn't really feel that much. In AoE2 even towers can kill multiple units at a time. That could be an interesting thing, but if every arrow goes for that unit then the player probably won't have the time to react before the unit dies. Also, having distinguishable arrow volleys would help with that (not saying that's not the case right now, I didn't play recently enough to remember)

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.

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

I don't think we will ever know what @borg- drinks to make him the way he is.