maroder
-
Posts
780 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
11
Posts posted by maroder
-
-
38 minutes ago, Stan` said:
Little bros and sisters.
Yeah edge case will always be there. But they could just use the same account.
-
So people seem to agree that smurfing is kinda dumb and makes it harder to balance team games, but that sometimes you just want a new account.
So how about actually enforcing the "only one account rule" everyone accepted when joining the lobby, by deleting older account from the same IP/ machine?
So every player would still be able to create new accounts, but would need to accept that every account before that (including the rating) is deleted.
-
1
-
-
16 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
Xposted from @leopard's post
Have to agree
I would vote to just include every civ from DE that is over 80 percent done. Then do balancing by grouping civs.
-
4
-
-
@LetswaveaBook I'm happy to hear that you are open to new ideas, but there are some forum members who (from what I know and experienced) have a very what I would call "conservative" view of what changes should be made and what not.
There have been things said like "if you want to change something put it in a mod, but please leave the main game alone" or the very liberal use of the confused smiley on every new idea and proposal.
Which are very legitimate opinions, so no hard feelings, but that's doesn't create the feeling that changes are welcome.
-
2
-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, Yekaterina said:
Unique features = new imbalances
Lol. This is why we can't have nice things.
-
2
-
2
-
-
27 minutes ago, Yekaterina said:
Then, for excitement, we can add new aesthetics and new maps, which pleases the singleplayers without upsetting the hardcore TG players.
I feel like you missed something when reading the first post. How would that fix the point that the factions are just kind of bland and lack unique features?
-
3
-
-
6 hours ago, alre said:
actually devs give fairly little attention to balancing.
Lol that's not true. There are so many things that are not getting in the game for the fear that people will find it "unbalanced" and start yelling.
Every decision that touches the gameplay is looked on from the angle of "what do the multiplayer think".
The problem is that most devs play the game not super competitively, but just casually, so no one I know of claims to be an expert for balancing.
Which is why there is an extra balancing forum now.
-
1
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, SciGuy42 said:
If anyone can point me to the code of how that was implemented before, please do, for this mission it was intended.
As far as I ca see the code wasn't removed (at least in this patch), so it should be sufficient to add the missing xml pice @Langbart mentioned back into the lighthouse actor file (or create a new lighthouse actor that has this enabled, without changing the new one)
-
@JCWasmx86 is already working on improving the AI Endgame
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, hyperion said:
Single-player vs Multiplayer, me thinks either both should use a hyphen or neither, tho I admit I'm not that great in English.
As @Freagarach hinted, that's less a concern of my mod and more of the main game
I only use what is already there.
1 hour ago, hyperion said:Also I agree with Freagarach that the center bar is not ideal. For your background it works somewhat but most existing ones will have important elements cut out. They are fine pieces of art and deserve better
Maybe an approach like the bottom bar could work with a corresponding font or maybe just move those 3 buttons to roughly where they were in the original design. Guess they won't be any less prominent there than if they are dead center.
And yes, I think I will bring back some transparency to the main/ center menu, but I don't like the idea of moving the buttons to the side again.
For one, the are the most important buttons and positioning them roughly dead center means they are the first thing you notice when looking at the screen, which highlights their importance (contrary to the buttons positioned at the edges of the screen).
Also, moving them to one side would destroy the symmetry I personally find aesthetically pleasing.
But yes, the reason that I made a new background is 1) that I wanted to look at something different and 2) that the old backgrounds didn't work that well with the new menu design :p Maybe I can move some stuff around in the old backgrounds to make it look better tho.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, nwtour said:
Small fix missing translations for non-English interface in shiny:
Thanks. Good point, I only tested English for now. Will try to include that in the next iteration.
-
1
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Stan` said:
You could use this version of the logo.
Thanks, I will try and report back.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Palaiologos said:
Love the refined, modernized look on version 3.1. What about having multiple background images (say a dozen or so maybe?) (especially @wowgetoffyourcellphone works) that are cycled so each time the game is run one would get a different one?
Thanks! yeah It took a while
I am working on new images, but it's a slow process. I would like to include more e.g. the ones from DE, but the licensing of the DE ones is a bit unclear to me.
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, Freagarach said:
I must say that I liked the opaque play buttons (LTP, SP, MP) more than the solid ones now. It just cuts through the background too much now, IMHO. But maybe other feel differently.
Yeah, I agree, but the opaqueness makes it also harder to read on the very bright old backgrounds... Its a trade-off for sure. But thanks for the feedback, I will keep it in mind for the next version.
The idea in the back of my head is to make the color exchangeable by the user though an graphics option (but maybe that would be over the top)
-
1
-
-
Yeah, this is the best draft at the moment and according to the 80/20 rule the last tweaks to make it look perfect will take me way to much time. (And I'm out of ideas)
So if someone has a different nice design idea I would really like to see it, otherwise I will probably only try some smaller adjustments like @Radiotraining mentioned for the next version.
-
2
-
-
50 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:
Nobody here knows how to do that and I don't know how the engine should be adjusted.
I presume it would work via making new textures and not through a custom shader, so no engine adjustment should be needed?
Although a shader would make it much easier ofc
-
17 minutes ago, alre said:
maybe a bit out of style? respect to the logo iself I mean.
Yeah if you have an idea how it may look better feel free to make a draft. I made so many different versions and wasn't satisfied with any of them, so I'm open to new ideas
4 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:If you click on the logo, something happens, or is it ornamental?
It's ornamental for now, but the question is rather should something happen? And if yes what?
-
1
-
-
update to 3.1 based on feedback from @wowgetoffyourcellphone @Stan` @Radiotraining
[Logo background is probably still subject to further change]
-
9
-
-
39 minutes ago, Radiotraining said:
Before it had the advantage to look more sleek and minimal with the rest.
yeah, I abandoned the minimal approach for this version. Still not happy with it, but I didn't find anything better.
So if anyone wants to give me new ideas (preferably with a draft) I would be very interested to see that
-
3
-
-
I certainly wouldn't mind something like the Homeworld style
-
1
-
-
@OptimusShepard Thanks again for the report. v3.0 is out now, which should work on widescreens (hopefully)
@Radiotraining @Lion.Kanzen As you can see I switched to a rectangular logo background and gave it a bit more space. I hope that looks better now
-
2
-
2
-
-
-
But even if the mod would have problems, as long as you're an observer this shouldn't influence the players. From what I know your not actually sending any data that will influence the simulation.
And since observer can now actually lag behind (https://code.wildfiregames.com/rP25156), the additional calculations shouldn't slow down the game either.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, chrstgtr said:
I’m saying if we can only release every couple of months then we shouldn’t try to do turn times, acceleration, pathfinding, projectile speed changes, tower buffs, and unit stat changes. It’s too much to keep track of and therefore harder to balance.
Sure it is harder to balance and keep track of stuff, but slowing development down even further seems like a very bad trade-off.
-
1
-
On smurfing, ddos and malpractice in the multiplayer lobby
in Introductions & Off-Topic Discussion
Posted
The question is what is the ratio of multiple people playing in one household vs people using smurf accounts. From what is written in this thread I'm lead to believe that one is much rarer.
And I guess those people could be granted the right to do so (maybe they would have to prove that they can indeed play at the same time to further reduce the chance of it being smurfs). But manual approval of multiple accounts seems to me a better approach than just "allowing"/tolerating it by default.