Forums
-
Who's Online 1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 146 Guests (See full list)
-
Latest updates
-
-
Newest Posts
-
By Classic-Burger · Posted
There should be chivalric civilizations with broken cavalry. Too broken but not that one class is above the rest. There will be tiers of units. We already know that missile units are support for infantry fights. But it's a shame that the forge technologies don't feel as powerful as they do in other games. RTS are fantasy games of power. Command powerful armies, feel the power of being a general and an urban planner. Armies should feel powerful by upgrading their weapons. There are no technologies for LoS, there are no technologies for repair... There are barely there are technologies for capturing buildings. The nerf thing happens not only in 0 AD, but in many competitive games. -
I think you don't like the calls to "nerf" units , but that doesn't mean making the game more boring, to the contrary : what MPs players don't really like are too anchored 'metas' that make all games a bit too similar... Because one build or tactic is too hard to counter, and that therefor a players can repeat it regardless of the opponent being aware of what you he'll do. Ideally strategy, improvisation, adaptation would be rewarded over mechanically applying a cookie cutter build. You get a better experience from a game where you have to use your brain, teamwork, rather then just trying to be fast fast at spamming broken champ cav for example. Idk how exactly that translates for SP, probably just not being incentivize to make an army of 1 unit type, because it's stronger and isn't at risk to be countered, is already kinda giving the game an extra dept. Pretty sure that it's universal that players play RTS for the Strategy part (Even if I've been told that "Real Time" means it should be about being fast clicker or what not). -
You’re arguing against a straw man. Very few people want to eliminate things the way you’re saying and most that do get ignored (for good reason). The loudest the multiplayer community ever was was right after a24 got released and a lot of that was because features got eliminated. Note, when that happened a lot of SPs and devs initially dismissed the complaints before coming around later. The most you hear now from the MP community now is that champ cav is OP, which no one has really found solution to. The other recent thing I’ve heard is reza saying fana is OP to which most people told him he was wrong. MPs will regularly say things like certain techs like “spies”are useless but even there it’s not like the SP is saying how great they are. -
Starcraft 1 is full of OP units, in fact. That might be why it became "balanced", every race had some nasty OP units. I'd say Scythe Chariots and Chariot Archers were more OP than expensive Centurions. True, sadly. Definitely agree here. You can always nerf the most blatantly OP units. That, and the fact they're naked. As in, without armor naked. -
By BreakfastBurrito_007 · Posted
I absolutely agree, we can be balanced without being symmetrical (as in aoe4). We have been through reduction eras in 0ad such as a24. We have come a long way in introducing varied gameplay mechanics and we need to continue doing that even if there are situations where things are imbalanced. For example fanas can be powerful at times, perhaps even op and perhaps in need of a nerf, but we should not revert their cost back to include metal as that is what differentiates the fana so much from other champs. -
By Classic-Burger · Posted
The problem comes when you start to become obsessed with balancing. Early RTS games weren't supposed to have such strict balance. Eventually, you're supposed to nerf everything and the gameplay gets boring. A seemingly balanced game is not the same as an overbalanced game. This happens not only with RTS. Fighting games are like that, seemingly balanced. StarCraft I wasn't like that. Even in AoE I there were very OP units like the centurion. The other thing is always the lack of exploring new mechanics. So the innovation is in the mods, they have no one to criticize them. The balance before was that there was 1,2,3. The balance now is that everyone must be equal, all must be 1. I'm not saying it's good that Gaul Fanatics are broken. Previously, what was done was to create an Achilles heel for a strategy or unit. returning to the main theme of the mechanics of technologies would be better if there were many technologies that cost little were much more, in the form of a path, the path would be a strategy, but it is an idea an approach. And for the technologies to be useful it is simply necessary to make them work differently than if they were not there, that is to say that they have a real impact on the gameplay. It's not strange and it makes you think, that people do not use the technologies because there is no real impact on the gameplay. -
By BreakfastBurrito_007 · Posted
I think listening to competitive players/esports players results in improved gameplay. High level players like a game where they can continue to improve and as a result of their level continue to beat players who are worse than them, this is why aoe2 is still alive. Good gameplay mechanics are ones that are easy to learn and very hard to master. Aoe4 was seen by some as a sequel to aoe2 but the developers dumbed down mechanics as much as possible and the result was twofold: civs looking different but actually playing mutually equivalent having no baseline to stand out from, and there being no skill expression. The strategy of the game was basically boiled down to the series of decisions made while aging up. A key example of this is that you can't walk thru an enemies raised gate, its an infallible passive filter. Aoe4 as a result has been vastly less successful than aoe2 has despite aoe2 being old as the hills. Maybe this seems elitist but I promise you its not. A game which features skill development is fun for all ranks. So having features which could be seen as "competitive" is actually just good game design.
-
