Jump to content

chrstgtr

Balancing Advisors
  • Posts

    1.152
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    24

Posts posted by chrstgtr

  1. 45 minutes ago, TheCJ said:

    If someone always uses proGUI, his skill will be estimated accordingly, so it will not affect balance.

    You miss the point with this talk. We don’t care how much advantage it gives. We don’t care if we know you’ll be getting this advantage. I, and others, don’t like playing with people who use it. It is our choice. Telling us we have to accept it is no better than us telling you that you can never use in your SP games or games where all players accept its use. 

    Anyways, I’m out on this thread again. I only popped in to clarify what I said a post or two above. 

  2. 8 minutes ago, TheCJ said:

    Well, yes.
    But I think it's enough if the host clarifies his preference (I will just start to call my games "teamgame, proGUI users welcome") and if you don't wan't to play with someone that uses proGUI, you don't join those games? Then the agreement would be implicit by joining such games?

    But of course, that won't solve the problem entirely.

    Go for it. No one cares if the mod exits or is used with other consenting players. 

    But many, many players consider it cheating and do not want to play with users that use it. If a player insists on still using it in those conditions then I don’t know how you don’t consider it cheating. 

    And, that’s really what this whole thread is about—whether users can unilaterally decide that they can use the game with other non-consenting players. 

  3. 17 minutes ago, Atrik said:

    Alright, well I never saw that for myself. I only already saw wrong accusations about Matias using it while he never did but that doesn't count.

    Which also underscores the need for better viability. No one wants to be falsely accused either 

    • Thanks 1
  4. 18 minutes ago, Dunedan said:

    If everybody in a match explicitly agrees to the usage of cheats, I wouldn't consider using them an unfair advantage

    Note, it’s more than just who hosts the game  

    Also, @Atrik not everyone knows who uses ProGUI. It may be the case for you. But not for other users. I have seen people lie about their use of it, which is culpable behavior. It’s also very dumb because it is very easy to determine by observing a player play

  5. You’re missing the entire point. 

    41 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

    The entire point is to blunt the capture->delete meta. 

    The point is to end the delete=capture first then delete meta. What I am describing is something totally different. It is where you purposely capture to gain a benefit. 

    35 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

    Gaining the benefit of that building isn't a reason to capture it? The only reason in your mind to capture a building is to delete it? Do you not see the problem here? :) 

    You’re still missing the point. If I am going to fight in an enemy base then it makes sense to capture a temple to heal my units and fight around that temple. Or to capture a tower. Or to capture a barrack to spam nearby troops. 

    37 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

    There are several techs in the base game that I find uninteresting or of only minor use

    Those should be deleted. 

    38 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

    I think building strength and capture strength are useful/interesting, especially if the capture->delete meta is changed. 

    Strong disagree. It will either be a tech that you always want, which means it is uninteresting. Or a tech you never want, which also means it is uninteresting. 

    It will also be regressive with better players who are able to consistently push not needing the tech. While worse players who are regularly pushed on will need the tech. So the good players have cheap gameplay while the bad players have more expensive gameplay (on top of already being bad). 

    • Like 1
  6. Everything doesn't need a tech. I personally find the tech tree to be getting too large and filled with a bunch of uninteresting things. This would be another uninteresting tech. 

    18 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

    I think making it so buildings can only be deleted if they are connected to your town could work, but does anyone think this would be frustrating?

    This would make it so you can't capture a building in an enemy building and destroy it (i.e., no temporary tower, barrack, or temple). This means there would basically never be a reason to ever capture a building in enemy territory. This seems like an obvious downgrade. 

    Also, it this an edge case rule that no one will remember, which makes it frustrating. 

  7. 1 hour ago, Stan` said:

    As in for Release 28 yeah if we don't find the culprit. It would nice to diagnose the source though. Are people using Vulkan or OpenGl, what kind of GPU they have etc.

    We haven't figured out the source and who it is impacting. I thought you had it figured out. But I guess we still need to do our diligence to find source too

    Base settings and base game is def causing a problem for every 4v4 game that I have seen, including games where we ask players to turn down graphic settings. 

  8. On 31/01/2025 at 2:47 PM, Stan` said:

    GPU Skinning

    I know it is too late now, but can we turn this off as default for future alphas/downloads? Every new alpha it seems like there are massive complaints about lag that result from improved art/processes/etc. 

    I haven't played too much this alpha yet. But I am already hearing a massive number of complaints about lag. I tend to agree with those complaints. 

    • Like 1
  9. 4 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

    So, I am keen to see how the -1 hack armor change plays out and then nerf HP to 280 if necessary. Changing the counter back to 3 affects too many other units, especially when most ppl agree its just melee champcav that are really the problem.

    Just change it for vs champ cav. The problem with champ spear cav has always been that they're too good of meatshield against units that should be able to counter them. If the rest of the game is balanced (big if) then a hot fix will be to make CS inf spear counter champ spear cav with a better multiplier. 

    5 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

    I agree melee champ cav are out of balance, but is there widespread agreement that sword cavalry

    I think this is an overstatement. There is widespread agreement that champ spear cav is OP. Much less agreement on whether champ sword cav is OP. I also don't think I've heard any (credible) person say that CS sword cav is OP.

  10. 5 hours ago, wraitii said:

    Making things block vision could be a significant slowdown and would at a minimum require a large rethinking of the LOS algorithm.

    Seems like it would be real complicated. You can just put fog of war up around walls because you SHOULD be able to see if you have units on the same side of the wall as the enemy. 
     

    Also, to @real_tabasco_sauce’s point. The whole game is an abstraction. We don’t provide and take away vision based on what your units actually see. For example, you can see enemy units even if your units have their backs facing the enemy. 

    If you really want to make sense of it, just assume the walls are always manned even if those units don’t do anything more than provide vision. The game has a ton of abstractions. 

  11. 3 hours ago, Stan` said:

    Hiding maps behind options is as good as putting them in a mod IMHO.

    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).

    3 hours ago, Stan` said:

    It also makes the download smaller which reduces costs with the bandwith and our finite server space.

    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. 
     

    3 hours ago, Stan` said:

    Another problem we have is that most people making videos always pick the worst looking ones which is terrible for the game's image

    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. 

  12. 35 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

    No, everyone else. We'll have 100+ maps of extremely variable quality because why not

    Folks need to look into the sunk cost fallacy

    All you have to do is ignore those. If a single person likes a single map that gets deleted then it is a net loss. 

    But more to my point, we were promised a lot when a24 gutted the features everyone loved. We were told that they would come back and that this gutting was somehow necessary. Two alphas later and most people say the civs are still not differentiated as much as they were in a23. Additionally, virtually everyone hated a24. 

    Anyways, I already said which maps I found utterly useless earlier in the thread. But that's just my opinion 

  13. 5 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

    This would be awesome, I'd love to join even if I just have time to spec.

    @Player of 0AD I'd say that may not be the case in a27, there has been work to make many more maps playable, and specific gameplay focus on some new maps. Additionally placement options could allow variations on how even mainland plays.

    There’s what? One new map in the last 4 years? And that map is nearly identical to mainland. Yet, mainland is played 95% of the time. There’s always been playable maps. People just don’t play them. 
     

    (Another new naval map will come out with a27 too). 

  14. 10 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

    Blah blah blah..

    You should at least tag me.

    I say things straight up.

    I'm not good, I already said it.

    If I can smash your face in public and make it clear to everyone here.

    I'm not hiding, I don't live in a state where that's a reason to hide.

     

    25 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

     

    @TheCJ Do you want to take this discussion further?

    It's easy to hide behind a keyboard.

    In real life you wouldn't be so lucky

     

    Mods: @Dunedan @Norse_Harold @Stan` @s0600204

    This is ridiculous. He’s spamming a thread to just threaten and insult others that are acting in good faith. Literally no one has been able to have a real discussion on the forum for weeks because of this one user. You want to show that you enforce the rules fairly? Ban the user that is literally threatening physical crimes 

    • Like 1
  15.  

    1 hour ago, Dunedan said:

    Rules are enforced equally, so if you believe somebody is breaking the terms of use and isn't held accountable for that, please report it. Moderators don't see everything, so we rely on reports by players as well.

    Literally the very first post in the one if the threads about rule breaking mentions another player. Another post in the other thread included rule breaking that you warned about several times  

    I’m not here to say someone’s rule breaking is acceptable. But there are obviously noise in the system  

    PM me if you want to discuss—I’m done posting on this subject.  

  16. 1 hour ago, guerringuerrin said:

    Not sure what you mean, @chrstgtr

    As you said, many players frequently break the rules. But only one player got banned. That banned player was also the subject of many pages of complaints on the forum, which were authored by basically just one person making the complaints (who notably needed frequent reminding of the forum rules in their rants).

    The rules should be equally enforced without preference or prejudice for/against anyone. 

    • Like 1
  17. 1 hour ago, guerringuerrin said:

    Considering the number of violations of WildFire games' policy by many players, this situation seems very weird to me.

    Rules should be enforced equally and not according to whoever complains the loudest or most frequently on the forum. 

  18. 11 hours ago, Stan` said:

    Yet most players with user report on are SP players not MP ones (1500 vs 150) by a factor of ten. So there must be something that's keeping them playing everyday.

    Sadly FOSS is people driven not priority driven. If you force people then you lose developpers and they are harder to get than players.

    Also not all skills convert.

    But do we know how long those players have been playing? We know that there are a lot of downloads. How do we know that these aren’t new players that are continually coming in but not being retained? 

×
×
  • Create New...