Jump to content

RoekeloosNL

Community Members
  • Content Count

    187
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by RoekeloosNL

  1. And #3 sould be add a no building radius of fields around CC With a updated UI for how to use farmfield so people place them near the farms" more realistic and better looking" farmfield sould not be placed around a CC but around a farm and give more food for gathers that bring food to the farms then when the bring it to the CC with the idea farms process better so they get more out of it. Field lose health? lolz they sould decay when not worked on and when units start working on them after some time they need to be re seeded with will take some time more then a new field. I like your idea but the gameplay overall need to be taken with a more realistic aprotch i think 0.A.D is going more to the arcade and simple style the the realistic and fun like it was prenounced
  2. Yeah walls sould be cheaper and stronger!. You build a wall to Protect your city not to trow away resources so they can be easly destroyed. Same for all towers types... And i also think they sould only be destroyble by siege engines so you get a goal to build them. WHen walls are up nobody can rush you anymore with rush builds but need to research new tech and build siege engines to attack a walled city. only wooden towers/walls can be attacked with fire arrows but takes a long time and need a tech for archer units. Every nation sould have different wall hp and cost but not to exspencive. Then you get different unit's having different roles for different jobs: meaning many different game style,s. I think it's time to finally get a realistic system so everything got a role.
  3. I still think the capture feature sould be second place. destroy sould be the main action of the units and capture sould be second. Because many people dont know the shortcut and it's wierd that units capture first and need to be told to attack with a short-cut. There sould be a icon with description for the capture feature, And not every unit sould be able to capture so you get unique units with different tasks.
  4. I right click on a building to attack and all my units just stand next to it idling! They are not idling, but capturing. Capturing currently has no animation, so it looks like they are idling, but they are actively draining loyalty from the building. If you want to attack a building (or siege engine), use the Ctrl+Right click command. Capture sould be second so you attack first and if you want to capture you give them a command via short-cut or UI.
  5. What about both. Every Era phase gives a X amount of bonusses and onlocks new buildings while building those you onlock a new "Era phase" then you get new buildings but also have to upgrade existing buildings to get to a new phase for more onlocks with new techs you name it you can do it with a system like that. And i believe it will give you a good feel when you reached the next era to upgrade buildings for new units,techs,buildings, to then hit the next ERA for more bonusses and stuff and so on. I think when done right you can get everything from both worlds with a unique system. But if there where a building upgrade system it would be nice to have different models to show the upgraded buildings. And every new age phase give's you the feel of progressing in time (with every phase new goodies) while building upgrades gives you more to do with many different options.
  6. I see in SVN that almost everything is able to capture now. While i hoped it where only special units that would give another layer to the game, but now it will mostly be games based on capture. i hope im wrong but i really have the feeling the capture feature is overpowering normal gameplay.
  7. Maybe a nice ready for you Alpha975, http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?557729-My-list-of-Ship-Types-weapons-and-tactics-that-could-be-in-ROME2-Please-help-add-to-my-list With the many different types of ships for all purposes you can create so many awesome situations. If 0.A.D nexts big feature update would be "seabattle mechanics , effects , and stuff" Then ships like the Harpex / firepot / corvus and artillery / archer ships would have so mutch potential to create unique battle,s and make 0.A.D a game to play in different ways. I really hope that after the capture feature naval get's it mutch needed love...
  8. Well all those things can be balanced for the best result and new mechanic,s and features added to make it work with 0.A.D, I think it would be awesome when you fight on a big map and have small skirmishes and small/big battles to build up your forces to lay siege to your opponent. I love long games and big maps and if 0.a.d goes for that with ofcource some game host options to set up the game like they want then i think you would have some awesome games in the future even if they take longer then a normal RTS match i bet you won't even know you played that long because you are having fun! I dont agree with that Naval battle,s sould get a real battle system and function. When every thing got a role and function you can do so mutch more. So that sould not be keep it simple to keep it right, No it sould be give everything a role and function to get it right:P And have some Awesome naval battles and beach landings!
  9. Really nice, Would be very useful for campaigns and stuff.
  10. Oke what do you think about this, Units need to enter the building to capture but first they need to RAM the door "Damage shown with small health bar" then when the door is destroyed by the attackers they can enter to begin capturing but when the building has a garrison they need to fight inside with the progress of the fight is shown by "A swords icon and a progress bar" And the buildings have a cap limit based on the size of the structure for both sides. So lets say it its a fort and has a 10/10 cap and both players have 10 units fighting then the winner is the one with the best units based on class/rank/experience or something. And when the fighting bar is shown NO teams can't send more units inside until one side has won. The defender got a advance over the attacker because they first need to break the door before they are able to start capturing. And when the attacker lost the fight the defender got to repair the door when not done in time the other player can try again with fresh troops in the hope the other player did not replenisch his garrison. But when the fight is won by the attacker he starts capturing and the capture rate is based on the amount of units inside but won't take age,s because the fight is already won so sould be yours not right away but 15/20 sec later with few units and a full house 5 sec. And for effects, You need a animation for units to represent battering a door Some UI icons and stuff and maybe some battlesounds are played when units are fighting inside buildings. Not all units sould be able to enter/capture like cav or other classes then infantry because then it give,s different units different purposes. I think that would be a nice system and more realistic then units praying or slashing to a building...
  11. Thats probably because the "sessionToolTip" code is not yet assigned to the object. And if you want to report every ERROR why dont you make a ERROR thread and post in there everything you encounter then make a new thread for every Error/bug.
  12. Love to see some working ship combat mechanics for 0.A.D would add even more fun to play and see different ships getting destroyed by fire or ramming.Awesome Ship combat is one of the things i miss with 0.A.D and would add new tactics and ways to play to the game. Good luck with the new models and don't forget to make different destroyed models
  13. Fishing boats are just that fishing. And tirimes are the ancient battleships not transport ships they had marinies on them and so sould it be ingame. Why would you want to put a x-amount of men on a small fishing boat to get shot to pieces in a sec when if you want to scout you can use a faster ship and stronger. As long it is practical and based on real acounts then you can use fishing boats to use for early raids, But its a small boat so would be around 2/4 unit cap and you need alot of them for a affective raid s that would cost alot while when wait a little you can have a navy and transports for a assault. There sould be 3/4 types of ships with there own purpuse. Tiriems manned with mariniers and ofcource different types of ships with all there own purpuse. Transport boats for beach assaults with no ram abillity. Support ships Catupult/scorpions. And all ships will have ofcourse some tech upgrades or ability upgrade,s. Each ship sould have a own goal and with different styles every player can have there own way of how they use it.
  14. Then i think the best way to do is to have farmable land only on the bigger size islands and like Darcreaver said the main food source would then be fishing. And to enable it you can have a mechanic that you need to build a farm near the farmfields "fixed position" to clame it. I Also agree that there sould be a none build radius around the CC or something. And same for mines and it would also be nice to have buildable mines of some sort.
  15. Yea, but then only wooden buildings should be able to be damaged by them, because else it's "unrealistic" You didn't get the core from my post. I said there needs to be a concept for which each resource is used. If you don't create such a concept you'll have a bad economy system. For CoH and the other games I've named have an exactly planned economy system, which works out well. Also "most maps" are not covered in trees. There are maps with lots of trees and maps without. Try savannah or Alps or Anatolia or some others and you'll see. Those maps are impossible to play at all, because you're too dependant on wood. This is not about balance, this is about the basic design of economy, buildings and combat system. This has nothing to do with "balance" at all. Balance is a result after the design is set and the core game mechanics are working. Balancing is adjusting details that were overlooked in the design process by stats, costs and buildtimes. And always done considering the overall design intention. If there is no design you cannot balance. It's pretty straightforward actually. Also, I really hate how people always come up with realism. Seriously. If someone wants realism go play a war sim game like Rome or some other Total War game, which gets pretty close to realism. RTS is not about realism. It's about interesting gameplay. Choosing a strategy building counter units and countering your opponents strategy and units. Having many strategic options for comebacks and surprising your opponent. About a working counter system. Also, how is having a game with 200-300 intended pop cap realistic in terms of warfare? Ancient larger cities usually had thousands of citizens alone, on top of armies consisting of thousands of men stationed everywhere. Edit: Don't get me wrong, it's good to have realism to a certain amount - it adds up logical points to the game. E.g. Spears being good against cavalry units, or Skirmishers having high damage on their javelins against enemy infantry and stuff like that. Additional features like flanking attacks and so on also create more depth and tactical options ingame. Optical, historical accuracy for buildings and units is also important for the game's atmosphere. And I certainly appreciate stuff like that. What I don't appreciate is what I call "overburdening features" or "unnecessary realism". Game features should be interesting, intuitive, rewarding and overall, most importantly, FUN. If they aren't, they're not worth integrating into the game.
  16. I dont agree, At first 0.A.D is trying to be as historical an realistic as possible and when the time come's to balance all game mechanics then i believe the player is only able to bring down buildings with siege engines "and not with sticks and stones" and thats how it sould be not units hakking on buildings to bring it down. Archers sould have a tech unlock to fire-arrows for buildings. (But takes some time to bring down a building) A type of infantry unit sould have a tech option for torches. (Same as above) Siege-engines with some upgrades for different damage types or something. (Mutch more easy to take down buildings but not to easy" Artillery well takes speaks for it self!. And for building costs, I also dont agree this is not COH where everthing is build fast. Yes there still is need to find the right spot for the best effect and nice'r gameplay but thats with Alpha. But use of different resources "but only with what are the materials that the building is made from" some if its made from only wood is sould cost only that, or if its made from mostly stone with some wood then it sould speak for it self. So i partly agree but you also need to keep in mind that most map,s are loaded with trees not with other material so to keep it interesting you need to find the right balance and not just make everything faster or slower i say some yes some no so not everything is the same..
  17. My english is not great but i try to understand what you are saying. What do you mean with players being tagged? And for players that use bug/unbalance exploits yes its annoying but then when starting a match you sould set rules "I think a host sould have options to set up a game like they want" and if the player dont respect the rules KICK . But i dont understand the problem to create a ingame account to play online its also against cheaters and if the ranking ever come's back then there would be a option to play ranked or none ranked matches
  18. Like Leper said: Most people in europe are at work during the day " so less activity " then at night properly. And maybe because the witcher 3 is just released people that play 0.A.D are now playing the witcher . But a ranking system like COH with bonuses of some short might help players to invest more time in the game and have a goal to play different games/modes for there avatar and then it would be nice to have some UI changes for the player to make there own style of General with maybe some realistic perks. Hmm darn that would be Awesome... That would for sure atract more players and give's them a reason to keep playing "because when they dont have someting to play for most people stop playing after some time" and that we dont want right!
  19. 1#Scheduled for release "this year, when it’s done" Grigorovich says, Cossacks 3 will include 12 playable nations, including France, England, Russia, Ukraine and Prussia/Austria. Each will have their own unique forces and structures. Coming to Linux, Macintosh and Windows PC, it will include 5 historical campaigns, as well as multiplayer. 2# No it wont be free and the price is unknown yet.
  20. Sweet have had some great times back in the day playing this game, Lets hope its just as good and even better.
  21. Probably because they fire from a moving object? and maybe then arrows hit there target with a higher velocity "result harder impact" But if something like that gets changes then there sould also be changes to there hit radius when they are moving so not every arrow is a hit, And sould done to all moving units: cav,chariots,ect. And then when a unit also gets promotions the units get a little beter overall but not OP.
  22. Some champion or elite iberian cavalry already shoots flaming javelins. And some catapults shoot flaming rocks.
  23. Lovely idea and could give some nice new gameplay, I voted 2vs2 but i think it sould be both 1vs1 and 2vs2 plus both a medium and large map so you have to look for the trade routes with market towns/villages and that its not any near a starting location. Maybe i can also make a map for it but thats maybe because i don't have mutch free time.
  24. When I say balance, what I mean is that you don't want the outcome of the game decided by a players faction selection before the game even begins. Every faction should give players an opportunity to win if played with a strategy that compliments the faction. I'm not saying that what 0 A.D. is doing today is necessarily bad. I'm just saying that it is different than what was intended and (in my opinion) removes elements of strategy and makes the game harder to balance. (An extreme version of what I'm suggesting is that you start the game without a civ selection - just a generic civilization. Everyone starts the same. The civ is then selected in play after you have had a chance to observe the behaviors of your opponent and the map.)
×
×
  • Create New...