MarcusAureliu#s
-
Posts
302 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
11
Posts posted by MarcusAureliu#s
-
-
First of all i think it is important to notice, that rn players who get banned are those, who have 10+ smurf accounts, so it is generally possible to smurf, there are just limits to it.
For the sake of the argument, lets assume smurfing is generally allowed. It would mean that all not so well behaved players would have to be banned manually, possibly for each new smurf account. As it has been described above, there are certain ways smurfing is beeing abused, for example by bad behaved players or players who like to surprise others in rated games which can lead to frustration etc.
1) It is probably hard to distinguish between "good" and "bad" smurfs.
2) Even it is going to be hard to agree on rules on that. Is it for example ok not to reveal real identity/strenght and mess up balance ?
3) Who has the time to investigate wether a smurf is a good or bad smurf in every case ? In comparison to a state, 0 AD has no professional law enforcement, and people who work on it are doing it in their free time and bots cant do it.
4)As a result it implies the objective decision that having "bad smurfs" is the lesser evil compared to having reducing "troll" or "protection of identity" kind of smurfing. "Trolling" is just not such a vital or even intended part of having funn with the game, while "bad smurfs" can reduce the comfort for all players drastically by serious offense. Most legal systems, created through democratic processes, containing objective decisions on values would consider honesty, reliability, respect, offenses to peoples personal honour and dignity in the worst case of higher weight compared to very specific, non - life essential ways of having fun.
Therefore it seems to be a better solution, to keep current second account policies, and allow exeptions, for example when the same IP is shared between two different persons. It would assumingly be less work to handle, as players first have to come up with arguments, whose validity or at least plausibility could be analyzed more easily. For example in Yekaterinas case, you could just see replays, of them playing 1v1, or TGs ( one was uploaded to yt even) to have prove that two players are involved. Or if people want anonymity for maybe being molested with their original account people could explain their situation aswell.
-
1
-
-
#freeKate @user1
-
37 minutes ago, LetswaveaBook said:
@MarcusAureliu#s, could you convert it to PDF?
Also I have been thinking about differentiation and what I would consider interesting is giving Persians skirmishers that cost -20 wood and have 20% less attack. It would symbolize their larger infantry numbers that were not their main force. The skirmishers have -20% attack, but with +10% population space you will still have a potent force.
Actually i was thinking here on a more abstract skale, defining targets for each civ, where they should become strong or weak compared to other civs, more then giving actual exact numbers. Specific values should follow after and will need to be defined in relation to other civs numbers.
-
1 hour ago, LetswaveaBook said:
@MarcusAureliu#s, could you convert it to PDF?
Also I have been thinking about differentiation and what I would consider interesting is giving Persians skirmishers that cost -20 wood and have 20% less attack. It would symbolize their larger infantry numbers that were not their main force. The skirmishers have -20% attack, but with +10% population space you will still have a potent force.
Unfortunately that messes up the layout, you should be able to open it with Excel/Open Office
@LetswaveaBook I can upload it as a pic though
-
Eae. While the game is more balanced overall in A25 there are still generally strong and rather weak civs. Therefore i started a table to outline possible ways to give more individual character to each civ, which should make some historical sense and also take into account Balance by including targets of relative advantage compared to other civs for each phase.This is a work in progress and could be expanded and discussed, to eventually give an overview and provide a pool of ideas for future developement. I hope you find it somewhat useful and intresting.
-
2
-
-
Trigger points dont allow relic spawns, but eliminate the error message, i will solve it by placing thematically fitting Gaia Entities, like columns or something
-
Hi, i am working on a new skirmish map. It is a bit narrow and looks like a labyrinth and features no buildings, just hero and units for players, no res. Although there should technically be enough space to spawn a relic, i get an error when starting the game, relic mode active ( 1 relic) stating that there was no spawning point found on the map. Can someone educate me on the specific spawning requierements for relics ? Thank you
Edit: Now i added Gaia Walls ( error spam ) but Relics can spawn
-
Nice ! @ValihrAnt is my smurf btw. If u say cant be bc MarcAurel is a lot more op, let me tell u that as ValihrAnt i play intentionally worse
-
4
-
-
18 hours ago, aixo said:
I agree with everything what Dizaka wrote, very well summarized, and as Dizaka described we spent significant time on some effort to track the username which was harvesting IPs at that time, Dizaka described the process how we did it and unlike him I believe we were able to narrow the username down. The question now is - How does that help?
First of all, nobody would believe me that we did it honestly and correctly and with no offence most of the people do not even have technical knowledge to understand it to make correct judgement. Anyone could just say that we picked someone we didn't like.
And second of all, the username was using VPNs to connect to the lobby, their IP kept changing and I bet they use multiple accounts. Block one username or IP address and the ddoser will just create a new account from different IP provided by a VPN.
We can make it more challenging for the ddoser as Dizaka described but there is imo no ultimate solution with the way how the game hosting works/size of the community/no will of players to do anything to prevent the ddos and obviously anyone who's been doing that for more than a year has enough motivation to get through some barriers.
If you narrowed it down and there is a known player on the list that you dont want to accuse in public, i would be intrested in your pm
-
Otherwise i agree that 0 AD looks better, or maybe just more realistic overall. Also i dont see why i should spend 60€ if i can play 0 AD for free.
-
2
-
-
8 minutes ago, LetswaveaBook said:
On top of the minimap is an N for north. How is that N useful? It is just a waste of space.
Maybe they prefer players to tell pos by compass direction instead of clock or campaign says attack "enemy in north" instead of at "12"
-
1
-
-
A25 seems to be the best Alpha so far. It is alot better than the "camel rush and sling" alpha 23, as it offers more dimensions. P1 rush - P2 cav rush - Champions - Ranged focussed army - melee focussed army - i mean i havent played a lot, but seems more balanced so far. I kinda had the impression Camel rush very strong strat, especially with faster game, but it remains to be seen.
Edit: Also i like the new path finder a lot
-
1
-
-
19 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:
Does anyone want to try the new RC#4 in a similar setup this Sunday at the same time? Since it appears to me that the "charging" bug was removed in RC4 I think we can get a feel for the balance of units and civs by playing this version.
I might have time
-
13 hours ago, Yekaterina said:
Suggest some P2 champs?
Agreed
I think naked fanatics, black cloaks could come back
-
1
-
-
My observations so far
- Better looking graphics, especially many of the new tree models are really nice, also i like the 3-d grass a lot. I think though, that metal/stone is harder to distinguish with updated textures.
- Melee units (inf and cav) seem very strong, especially pikeman, skiritai and sowrd cav, while archer units barely do any damage. Ofcourse archers needed to be nerfed compared to last Alpha, but they got nerfed a bit too much.
- Updated pathfinder improves gameplay a lot. Also big armys with siege manage to navigate relatively smoothly through narrow passages between houses
- The gameplay is more fast overall, encouraging agressive play, early fights, which is making the game more intense, that is a good thing in my opinion
- Champions seem to be viable option to go for, especially in 1v1 or 2v2 games ( also in a24 possible), but i cant find p2 champs ( which i liked in previous versions)
-
2
-
2
-
25 minutes ago, Yekaterina said:
Maybe ban for smurf account ? I dont know ofc, but that is usually the reason
-
16 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:
Are you guys willing to play on RC2 Tomorrow? My thinking is it will be easier to install and we have a higher likelihood of a bigger TG. Also, there are many changes affecting balance even just in RC2, that it would be worthwhile to try it to assess what the balance issues could be.
CET is Central European Time, for me it converts to 10 AM Pacific Time.
Yeah, i would have time, but generally its a working day for many, and on Weekends overall player numbers are highest
-
13 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:
Thats great to hear. To be frank, the pathfinding and unit responsiveness from a24 was a lot more tiresome than getting owned by Rauls' micro every game of a23.
I know exactly what you talk about
-
I think the A25 release candidate could benefit a lot from feedback gained by playing a "competitve" Teamgame. Who would be in at Sunday 19 CET ?
@borg_ @Feldfeld @chrstgtr @Stockfish @ffffffff@nani@Pudim@JC (naval supremacist)@Yekaterina@carthage@BoredRusher@Boudica@vinme@Dakara@Dizaka@faction02@cl2488@Jofursloft@Wendy22@badosu and all the others i forgot or cant find on Forum (pls inform)
Should be fun and A25 looks really nice. If you dont have A25 and dont know how to get it check out this thread with detailed instructions.
Make sure to update to the latest version
Thanks for taking notice and see you on Sunday
-
4
-
-
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:
I'm sorry that he said those things mate!
I hope you get some justice.
Thanks, i am not serbian myself actually, i am just done with such people in general, so i dont care against whom it is directed.
And i dont want people who just want to play 0 AD and actually belong to the targeted group be discouraged from doing so.
-
3
-
-
-
1
-
-
Generally i was also thinking, why not have someone who has experience about promotion/PR "influencing" etc. join wildfiregames so he can act with "legitimation" and implement some sort of strategy ? I get that wildfiregames is mostly about programmers, game developing etc, but i dont see why wildfiregames can not have its own publishing department.
-
There are several 0 AD groups already on discord.
And several others
Those are all private though, it would be good to have attention not divided amongst all of them and have something like a "offical 0 AD discord group" by wildfire games, which is linked of Wildfiregames social media, website etc. new people wont usually search whole forum to find some links. There sharepics/posters announcements text, post etc could be posted by ppl with such skills and then added to other platforms by private people. You could post news about tournaments hosted, games dev news, new alphas, screenshots, etc. which is partially happening already on 0 AD Fb, but all could use content and spread elswhere.
-
1
-
.png.13331e5068c334f73b0222430f88cefa.png)
Civ Balancing and Differentiation while paying attention to current Civs playstyle aswell as historical strenghts
in Gameplay Discussion
Posted
Yes, there will be discussions for sure. The point is though, that right now there is not even a rough balance inbetween civs. For example Ptolemies have very good options in all phases, military as well as fast boom and no later eco disadvantages. Can you name a single aspect of the game, where seleucids are superior to ptolemies ? Maximum is heros with different abilities. Also i have tried to characterize existing civs, so their actual advantages should be improved upon, others should be added, or nerved, so that if you compare two random civs there is at least room for argument which one is better in which situation or phase of a standard game. Paying more attention to the pure existence of relative balancing would improve the game a lot. Like for example the ideas of: Sparta: stronger units, but less pop space, Maury weaker units but more Pop space. Gauls better boom, less siege options. Alll those things will need to be expanded during civ differentiation and more of such differences should be added in order to differentiate. Therefore such graphs can be a guidline, on where these differences could be added, and a reminder to keep paying attention to having significant advantages for each civ in relation to other civs. I think this is maybe not the AoE 2 approach of having just minor differences, but i think the game will be more fun and versatile