maroder
-
Posts
779 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
10
Posts posted by maroder
-
-
Disclaimer: I don't frequent the normal lobby, so everything that I experience as problems regarding this topic is based upon the topics I've read here on the forums/ heard from other team members.
So just some general thoughts... in my experience moderation should be:
- based on clear rules that are known to everybody : rather self explanatory
- consistent : It is important to have consistency to avoid unfair treatment and to not undermine the rules from point 1
- immediate : people learn better if the response to their behavior is immediate and not delayed + depending on the violation it is important to act quickly
- better safe than sorry : If one person gets muted unfairly, that's bad for them, but if a toxic person is is not moderated, that is bad for everyone in the lobby.
I would say point 1 is fulfilled in our case.
______
Point 2: To me it seems like there are some problems here with our current approach. While we require users to accept the terms when registering to the lobby, we don't enforce them consistently, which undermines the rules in general.
I personally don't care if people smurf or not, but since it is in our terms of service and we don't enforce it, I think it sets the expectation that the TOS are only a 'guideline' and can be disregarded in other places as well.
imo: We should either actually enforce this rule or remove it from the TOS.
_______
Point 3: I guess this is the place where more mods would be very helpful. It is clear that no singular person or even a few persons can monitor a 24/7 lobby and react within a short time to violations. I would estimate that you would need around 10+ persons to get an good coverage around the whole day in the long term. So this:
On 16/08/2022 at 11:19 PM, user1 said:I'm happy to see some players interested in helping to moderate the lobby chat. This is why I have enabled for some players to help out in this area while trying to minimize the potential for moderator abuse (intentional or otherwise)......I think that just highlights that we should have not just one person but many! I would like to see the number of lobby helpers be in the dozens.
sounds indeed very good to me. And also +1 for automatic muting.
_______
Point 4: Just my personal opinion, but I would rather have people coming to the forums and saying: "hey, I got muted/ banned from the lobby for an unfair reason, can you please unban me" vs people coming here and saying: "there is someone spamming xy toxic stuff and harassing other people in the lobby".
On 16/08/2022 at 11:19 PM, user1 said:As I mentioned before we have thousands of players and thousands of new ones added constantly. Again, with very few reports from these players. It's not unreasonable to see it as at least somewhat successful. That's not saying there isn't room for improvement but it's good to have a balanced perspective.
It is certainly good that it works for the most part, but we also have to keep in mind that only a small percentage of people will report, even tho they are bothered and how easily one toxic person can ruin the mood and turn people away from using the lobby (or the game) altogether.
-
3
-
imo the should be moving while switching weapons (in the best case with an animation ofc). The question is if units should be moving while upgrading in general and if we are just misusing the upgrade mechanic in this case since we have no other option for weapon switching right now.
5 hours ago, Philip the Swaggerless said:Running units do not round corners. When making turns that are not even sharp they slow down and begin accelerating again.
Running units did never round corners? It has always been straight lines and sharp turns.
And yes that the accelerate now is actually a feature.
-
16 hours ago, Gurken Khan said:
Jebel Barka threw a bunch of placement errors, but I wasn't quick enough to catch them and they don't seem to go into the logs?
-
2
-
-
-
by all means we can give them a different name and bring them back
e.g. infantry_special_swordsman_b
Just the standard naming makes problems
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
Note that this also deletes the Han swordsman templates
the other option would be to keep them with a different name, but having random templates with an "_unused" suffix or another random name seemed also bad imo.
-
3 hours ago, Player of 0AD said:
Kushites cannot train or unlock champions in captured Han stables. I think this is not consistent and it doesnt only apply only for kushites. Maybe same also for barracks.
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, rossenburg said:
Maybe time to pay a visit to our artic friends? I dunno if there's a report about the artic animals that are already being worked on but since i started playing the game I've made few reports about our friends in the snow, can't wait to see them run and die like buffalos in a26
that is know. The problem is we have no one to do the animations at the moment.
-
2
-
-
On 06/08/2022 at 11:25 AM, Player of 0AD said:
If Persians capture barracks of some other civ, they can train infantry champs in p3 there right away
https://code.wildfiregames.com/rP27038
On 06/08/2022 at 11:25 AM, Player of 0AD said:Slaughtering corral animals should not give experience, and all kinds of animals should be available in p1, because corrals are already too weak in the early game.
https://code.wildfiregames.com/rP27037
On 06/08/2022 at 3:51 PM, Player of 0AD said:Hans are not able to train crossbow cav anymore but if they capture some stables ( I guess) they can.
-
1
-
-
there is already a ticket: https://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/6005
-
Yes, you just need to change the map type.
We have 'scenarios' which have the number of players and their civilizations locked, 'skirmishes' which only have the number of players locked an lastly 'random' maps, where you can choose the amount of players.
So in the menu to start a game you need to click on the map imagine and then choose one of the random maps. Then you can change the number of players.
-
1
-
-
sry bad link
-
Just so that everyone here has the same knowledge about what was discussed in the past here are some cross links:
[gameplay] Revisit Vision (and Ranged Attack) ranges : https://code.wildfiregames.com/D76
[gameplay] unify unit vision range : https://code.wildfiregames.com/D3487
[gameplay] lower soldier vision range : https://code.wildfiregames.com/D3486
[gameplay] increase vision of support units : https://code.wildfiregames.com/D3776
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Gurken Khan said:
Han Ministers don't give any loot. Shouldn't it be 10
wfood, 10 metal and >100 XP?-
1
-
1
-
-
No the problem is that you have an integrated graphics card on your cpu -> that's the amd one and a dedicated graphics card -> that's the Nvidia.
And unfortunately your computer uses the integrated one by default and there is currently a bug with the amd graphics which prevents the game from working properly.
But you can tell your computer that it should use the more powerful Nvidia card (see the link) and then you should be able to run the game.
-
the concept is the same engine wise, just a unit that is not automatically targeted by other units / buildings. The shrubbery is just the excuse to allow it.
Because why wouldn't a unit be noticed, if it is not hidden by something.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Gurken Khan said:
Since we didn't get the camouflage the last seven years, I'm not too optimistic we'll get it within the next seven.
there is https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4291
which could be repurposed/ expanded for general units.
But that's a whole other discussion about how exactly stealth should work
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, nifa said:
It's the same number of portraits in the same space. You can check, no change of the size. It would be 8 or 9 portraits per line instead of 10; but the columns are better filled up with 3 portraits, while in the original 7 out of 10 columns contain only 2 portraits.
does indeed look nice.
The next problem would be that you can select buildings at the same time as units:
which makes it additionally harder to fit everything into separate columns. And we give the player no information about what building belongs in which phase, which might make it more difficult for new players to understand what to build to be able to phase up?
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, nifa said:
what about sorting in columns by function and in lines by phase like this:
Yes, but how do we fit that into the tab on our minimum resolution?
-
Hey everyone,
one question regarding the UI, specifically about the order the buildings are displayed in the building tab.
Do you prefer if they are sorted:
Left: First by function (eco, trade, unit production, defense ect...) and then by strength / phase
or
Right: First by phase and then by function
-
2
-
3
-
-
7 hours ago, Gurken Khan said:
Don't know if it's not wanted or if just nobody came up with a patch.
1 hour ago, Player of 0AD said:I'm against this. There are already enough buildings where he can be garrisoned so you have a lot to do if you want to use his full potential.
yeah seems like not wanted. more discussion is ofc welcome and can be easily patched if more people are in favor.
For the rest of the heroes: yeah, there are just ideas missing.
-
5 hours ago, Stan` said:
It's not, it's because it's smaller IIRC. @maroder
Indeed. They are smaller, so you can fit more around the cc which protects them. As that is an advantage compared to other civs they only have three worker per field.
-
On 20/07/2022 at 5:58 PM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
This information could be useful if presented in a better way
what case are you thinking of?
I would say if you have a unit selected you automatically see what it can build, so that duplication is unnecessary in every case.
An the "trained by" doesn't make that much sense to me either, as you usually have already built the unit from the exact building, before you look at the tooltip.
-
1
-
-
The more I think about it, the more logical this seems to me
13 minutes ago, Darkcity said:I believe any capture building should only train units that are related to capturer. Which is the current implementation, except few bugs.
Balancing the Han
in Gameplay Discussion
Posted
Yes, it was a decision of gameplay over historical accuracy. If they also had the swordman, they would have had basically every type of unit which would make them extremely strong as they could easily counter everything.
If we see that they are not op in a26 we can see if we can integrate the swordsman, but I think they would need some kind of different nerf to balance out such a huge unit roster. (right now they also have a strong eco and siege unit availability so it would have just been too much imo)