Jump to content

hyperion

Community Members
  • Content Count

    9
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4 Neutral

About hyperion

  • Rank
    Tiro

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Just checked my a23 public.zip and there it's <SpecificName>Cassivellaunus</SpecificName> while it's changed in svn to <SpecificName>Cassiuellaunos</SpecificName>. So maybe you have both installed (or leftover artefacts) and somehow this results in this unexpected behaviour? What is your locale set to? One of pl, nl, cs?
  2. So Cassiuellaunos is the source string and with your language settings the displayed string is Cassivellaunus. Just change the source string should what you want, meaning the string can't be translated any-more and should be displayed as-is
  3. Add some metadata to mods describing their changes for example if an analytical approach is to tricky so a less conservative model can be devised. Just because a mod may change others doesn't mean they do. I mean if I add a mod with some maps nothing changes unless I play those maps. So such a mod should not prevent me from replaying a match played with those maps missing.
  4. Well, mods that don't change the simulation can be said to be compatible (simplified) and there is no need to enforce all participants to have the same set/order of installed/loaded mods to be able to play with each other. There was more than one occasion were I wanted to pull my hair because I couldn't even run a replay of a match because of a "wrong order of mod" or similar error message when there shouldn't have been an issue in the first place. Hence a more fine grained mod compatibility model should be devised or refusing to sign mods which "hide" could be considered a regression as far a
  5. Isn't the reason for "hiding" the mod not about wanting to get an "unfair" advantage but because of the "broken" mod compatibility check? Will a24 address this issue with a finer grained mod compatibility model?
  6. If we ignore aerodynamics and if I didn't screw up my math "<range> = <speed>2 * sin(2 * elevation) / <gravity>" for even terrain. I wonder how this whole arced trajectories can be reasonably done so the unit animations matches the required elevations.
  7. Yeah, production mixes units and buildings, the idea is to have an overview of what a player is investing in. Could possibly be changed and configured later. Tech mixing in progress and finished is intended as well. Researching can also be considered investing... It still boils down to the current split only making partial sense. Maybe allow 3 rows per player via hotkey as there is enough vertical space for it in 1v1 games. Unfortunately there's not much to be done on that end, it stores each turn gathered res in a buffer of 25 turns (~ 12.5s) then do a delta from
  8. A few comments after a short test: * strange behaviour of space + [q,w,e] -> maybe just use to switch between modes (tabs?) instead. * bogus spilt of modes: production mixes units and buildings, while units have their own mode buildings/structures do not. Finally tech mixes available and in progress. -> maybe have modes units, structures, and techs and all with the current techs behaviour. * gain per sec stats are to "jumpy" -> maybe replace function or make it configurable. * gain per sec stats also ignore loot. * KD -> maybe reverse order of actual KD and
  9. Balancing civs is trivial, just have a unit type, let's say jav cav, be OP enough and make it available to all civs and you are done. The above is a solution but it goes to show that balancing civs may well be undesirable or far from the only goal. So when is balancing even relevant and who is even qualified to talk about imbalance. Just recently I saw a match-up on yt where a much better player beat a weaker player and the conclusion of the commenter was civ a stronger than b. In my opinion the game would have ended the same even if you doubled the gathering rate of b by a factor of t
×
×
  • Create New...