| 1 |
@malric, I think both points can be addressed in TAW 2.0, to give the proposal a name.
|
1 |
@malric, I think both points can be addressed in TAW 2.0, to give the proposal a name.
|
| 2 |
\n
|
2 |
\n
|
| 3 |
Allow me to think big and be ambitious. Because at this point I think we don't have a clear view of how we want to get where.
|
3 |
Allow me to think big and be ambitious. Because at this point I think we don't have a clear view of how we want to get where.
|
| 4 |
\n
|
4 |
\n
|
| 5 |
You see which TAW 2.0 are currently running, with both a small minimap with taken mexes, attrition counter, approximate frontline, running time, economy overview, current vote, etc.. This information overview of a match is not available to players currently in that match. This prevents unintentional spoiling of information but gives a good overview of when a match will end. And it would be fun to look at without having to load each match and catching up.
|
5 |
You see which TAW 2.0 are currently running, with both a small minimap with taken mexes, attrition counter, approximate frontline, running time, economy overview, current vote, etc.. This information overview of a match is not available to players currently in that match. This prevents unintentional spoiling of information but gives a good overview of when a match will end. And it would be fun to look at without having to load each match and catching up.
|
| 6 |
\n
|
6 |
\n
|
| 7 |
When more people stick around in TAW 2.0, bigger matches will start sooner, just like in OG TAW.
|
7 |
When more people stick around in TAW 2.0, bigger matches will start sooner, just like in OG TAW.
|
|
|
8 |
\n
|
|
|
9 |
I think the classical lobby system is not enough.
|
32-player TAW is not good for Zero-K