alre

it is legal at now, and I imagine it will stay legal. but things could change.

btw there is debate over which is the ownership of AI-generated art. some regulation is possibly to be expected, but use and distribution is free for now. for italian readers: https://www.ilpost.it/2022/09/22/copyright-immagini-intelligenza-artificiale/.

very promising. weirdly plastic, some weird details, but probably good for icons already.

I think the hard/soft counter debate is meaningless for rts design, they are both legit choices depending on how those units are designed. first of all, a game can have both soft and hard counters, look at 0ad: sword cav is a soft counter for skirmishers, but siege towers are hard counters for archers, rams are for siege towers, and swordsmen are for rams... I think that for some units it's good to only have soft counters. if it feels good for them, why not? take medium/heavy infantry in "realistic" rts games like total war: they are the bulk of most armies, and it's only right that, however you are going to face them, it will either take a lot of time or quite some losses to take them down. of course hard counters are also good if they are well designed, and can be very fun. soft counters do lean towards snowballing, but some hard counters are enough to offset that I believe.

I would argue that the stereotype is just in your head, since there are no children in that image, also, chances are the sign and the parking where next to a supermarket or a mall, hence the shopping cart.

fire damage is OP guys. anyway, bigger variety in gameplay is welcome, when tested. unit specific upgrades are one of many possible ways to achieve that. I have another: Warbands: skirmishers get +2 conquer per second

the kushites are adorable only because of the starting priest, that makes early rides something more entirely; then there's all the rest of the stuff. I mean, they can mace buildings! it doesn't make sense, but is fun.

exactly. if randomness required equal chances, we couldn't say, for instance, that arrows land at random, because you don't have equal chances of different outcomes. looking further into the subject, there is a common concept of things being more or less random based on how predictable they are. techinically, this is uncorrect because randomness is a on/off property, and there are better, more mathematically sound concepts for expressing diversity in expected outcomes. but of course this is where technical jargon and common speech really diverge. I hope @Gurken Khan will forgive me for the OT, I promise I'm over it.

still needs the queries. potentially optimizable by keeping a table of all palisade segments and neighbours, updated by build ruitines, but that would need further work. actual performance fall has to be tested to be known.

those are technical words with precise meanings, and the following are facts: - random does not require even chances - RNG are algorithms that were always used behind random picking civs. I am an expert in the field.

potentially quite heavy because it could need a range query for every hit dealt to the palisade, maybe two (one for each end of the palisade segment).

that's still technically random, and of course it always relied on RNG.

well but turrets and towers are two different things. lazy solutions are better than no solutions anyway, and lazy fixes are still fixes.

I wasn't suggesting to just add arrows to walls, but to make garrisoned walls functionally similar, if not equivalent to garrisoned towers and forts. how? make the guys on walls not shootable at, and raise their attack time. Just a suggestion, but one that works for sure (similar to what we already have) while your solution may as well not.

I am a supporter of palisades having a bonus against cav, as it would differentiate it more from stone walls. I think another another buff for walls, would be to change the effect on garrisoned troops. if it was equal or similar to that of soldiers garrisoning towers, they would be more viable and interesting IMO.

there is not one right time. but when you start to train, you train a good lot then you attack. any time you spend without fighting is time you are falling behind in eco because skirtay gather slowly.

why not both?

at current revision, they do have different stats from other pikemen, but they still have the pikemen class. you do, changing the role of formations in the gameplay would require a lot of work and the effects are not knowable until then. that's no alternative to just changing some stats now, it's not even comparable.

what's that, exactly?

do han halberdiers need to be on pikeman class? ji are not pikes, and they have different stats anyway.

hopefully, balance can be carried on with official rebalance mod that will be released with a26.

lol agree. probably better to scale the number of slots with size, simply in order to avoid people cramming around the resource and being blocked out.

you mean https://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/2516#comment:31? yeah it looks like the game has to be modified, because most games wouldn't be rated even if all players resigned correctly, and maybe even if they stayed in the game until the end, it's not super clear from that comment. in any case, the problem is not in lobby-bots.

I think there is a general consensus that something should be done for that. Also something about ratings that are not up to date. However, I don't think anyone can tell now what's the best course of action. If players are presented with a solution that looks more satisfactory (in terms of computed ratings) than the previous one, they will accept it. also I guess that more than one rating system could be proposed at the same time, for trial periods. I'm proficient in python and in statistics, so I can mantain the lobby-bots part, if needed. why should that be different than in 1v1? one can make unrated TGs anyway.

definitely.