Jump to content

RoekeloosNL

Community Members
  • Posts

    187
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts 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

    • Like 1
  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.

    • Like 1
  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.

    • Like 1
  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.

    • Like 1
  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...

    • Like 2
  8. Sounds good, but just a few things I've noticed.

    Games that go from micro to full on macro tend to become games about rushing. There becomes this general formula for winning, build A, B and C then attack with X, Y and Z. What I like about 0ad is the diverse number of ways in which you can play the game, you have to ajust your plans when someone gets a little in front of you. "Bad" RTS games often kill diversity by advancing to macro too fast.

    Secondly LAG (fairly self explanatory).

    Finally games can get really monotonous at the end as time drags on. When an opponent puts up 4+ fortresses it adds another hour to the game and ends up being a competition to see who can run out of resources first.

    I just don't believe it's viable to go from a micro management game to a full on macro game. AOE succeeded because the number of troops did not get out of control and it still mattered which troops you got at the end of the game.

    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! :D

    FeXoR:

    - We should not focus to much on things like naval warfare like ramming or other features that are IMO edge cases mainly. Keep it simple to be able to get it right.

    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!

    • Like 2
  9. As for how to display it. There was the option to let units go inside the building (like garrisoning), and reduce Capture points that way. But this would make capturing a bit dull. Units inside buildings can't be attacked from outside anymore. If the attack capacity is limited (like the garrison capacity is), then either the defender or the attacker can always win.

    With the current case, of keeping units outside, the defender and the attacker have to react to each others choices. As it's a complete replacement attack against, I looked for attacks that were like physically attacking the structure. Using ladders, a piece of wood to ram a door, ... But due to lack of existing animations and suited props, some pitchfork animation was the closest I could find.

    But it starts to look like I'm the only one with this idea.

    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...

  10. 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 :P

    • Like 1
  11. 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.

    • Like 1
  12. Farms built only in farmland might be hard to balance, especially placing them in random maps and even more so, how would they work in maps with small islands? Have weird looking islets full of farmland, or have almost no farming for those maps? Overall almost any (relatively) flat ground should be farmable imo, and for balance reasons at the same rate. In my impression RTS games who have huge placement limitations to very basic resources didn't work that well.

    Some old discussions could be revisited though. Maybe the Civ Centre could have a small-ish radius around it where structures can't be constructed (or just farms) but units can pass through. This would make the econ more vulnerable to raiding, while being realistic, as you wouldn't farm in a City Centre. I'd prefer farming being available from the village phase, for realism and for preventing early defeat in cases where the opponent has map control and you can't venture far from your starting region for hunting.

    At the same time, starting mines and to a lesser degree forest masses would be nice to be a little more distanced from the CC as well, for similar reasons. Also limited starting exploration of the map to the Civ Centre's vision instead of the whole territory would make scouting more important, especially coupled with the ideas above, since you would have to locate your starting resources.

    I more or less agree with the OP in the resource and ranged unit dominance parts.

    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.

  13. I don't see how using siege against regular buildings is "realistic". In Ancient times and Medieval times enemy buildings were sieged for months to get a surrender. Assaults were done, but not that often. However, they got more "popular" after the invention of gunpowder/Siege cannons. So, according to your logic no unit should be able to bring down any buildings at all. Rams were used against palisades and Gates from Forts etc. Those huge catapults were never used against regular settlements, not to destroy single houses. It would be a logistical waste, as it slows down the army speed - you need ammo, carry the weapon itself, need to construct it at the settlement etc. This itself is already inconsistent in your post. Apart from that, there is no problem with having certain buildings being strong against regular units, but it's simply not a good idea to make all units not being able to damage buildings at all. This game is an RTS, there needs to be an option to reduce your opponents influence. To me it doesn't matter that much if that is done with the capturing feature or by making units stronger against buildings by default, but there has to be one. Having only siege for that leads to static gameplay. Which is bad. This is not Settlers IV or something, where you build your city for 3 hours and then send out some hundred soldiers to kill your enemy..

    Well you know what i mean, to bring down a walled city you need a ram, artillery or you can scale them with siege towers when you want to destroy houses ect you can use archers or units with the ability to use torches. And YES its a RTS And you still can do things like reduce there influence. I did not say ALL units. And it also wont lead to static gameplay since you can RUSH or harash your opponent and fight for resources and when tech is there you can attack a walled city just like its played now. yeah and this is also not COH.

    Yea, but then only wooden buildings should be able to be damaged by them, because else it's "unrealistic" :closedeyes:

    Most building have wood so burn you take it to far :D

    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.

    I understand maybe i used the wrong wordt but i do understand

    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.

    Sry but TW is also not realistic yes it has big citys big armys. But i mean by realistic different use of formations different fight styles per civ and tactics ect. And thats your meaning that RTS is not about realism even a as possible realistic RTS game can have interesting gameplay, So because the game is limited to a pop count you cant have realistic game mechanics.

    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.

    Yes realism to a certain amount like realistic fight mechanics. Well what you think is "unnecessary realism" others don't. And the devs are aiming for realism and historical

    accuracy and for people that like to rush rush and have 10 min games there sould probably some more host options so you can play how they want.
  14. Point 3: Buildings

    Easier access to siege, or making regular infantry better at fighting buildings (maybe through upgrades) would seem to be the way to go from my point of view. Even if there is infantry that tears down buildings quite well, it's still hard to advance without siege. Maybe, some infantry units could also have access to upgrades that help with building damage. Dwarves in BFME got an upgrade named "siege hammers" which made them deal lots of damage to buildings, but removing their ability to fight regular units. Maybe something related to flares or fire could do the trick for units in 0 AD.

    Also, building costs and times should be adjusted. Constructing buildings faster, and being able to tear them down faster leads to a more fluid gameplay, with more back and forth. Making buildings cost more stone compared to lumber makes economic choices and upgrades more important.

    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..

  15. I like the idea , this way for newcomer can play without be tagged as "noobs" or casual ( rare) player can try the lobby without tagged as bad player or noob, even for tester can test the game with real player without show himself as tester some times is useful for players like me because in online the players do it very different than the bots when I'm testing features, not all knows the full list of commands or exploits the unbalances, many times when I lost was the ability of others to have very strong strategy vs the ability to exploit little unbalances ( the other was made by masters/ very experienced players) but is a good for learning without be tagged. the other case when you have people that you don't like because you have own opinion, or you say something about their gameplay.... There a lot a situation I think.

    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 :P.

    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

  16. 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 :D.

    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!:P

  17. Two questions:

    1. Is it released or just announced?

    2. Is this game free? If not, how much does it cost?

    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.

  18. 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.

    • Like 1
  19. Not all fortress models and defense tower models are equipped for this. And I'd rather invest artistic and programming resources in other work.

    It seems like a lot of work for little gain, and maybe even end-user confusion.

    Would it be possible to enlarge a tower with a platform to build a catapult or scorpion on and do so with a mechanic that when you click on a tower you get a option in your UI to upgrade your tower with artillery. And lets say you only have a X-amount to build so you can't upgrade every tower and maybe even some new tech's to increase te amount and abilitys.

    I think its a well worth investment and creates some new defence/attack tactic,s to the game.

    Some champion or elite iberian cavalry already shoots flaming javelins. And some catapults shoot flaming rocks.

    And for the cav shooting fire javs i dont agree on and sould be just normal javs maybe you can give a upgrade abillty that add,s different javelins but not with fire. If 0.A.D try's to be as historial and realistic as possible then i don't think that iberian cav sould have that abillty i believe only the huns did something like that.

  20. 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.

  21. I don't think that artwork is a gigantic concern, it is always changing and evolving. It could always be used in the scenario editor, and could be changed on civ selection in game. I think the depth of strategy it would return to the game would be worth the trade off. With fewer factions, this enables greater diversity. The more factions you have, they all start to blend together in similarities - with only subtle differences. Balancing a dozen plus factions is also challenging. Red Alert had 2 factions. Star-craft had 3. The original 6 civs were chosen because they had some distinct historical differences that gave players a unique experience when they played. Mythos changed that after I left. He really liked the Greeks and was influenced by his own desires to recreate his dream game "Age of the Aegean". So, when he took over the game design of 0 A.D. some of the original vision was lost.

    Yes the game is evolving and since this is Alpha who says all artwork is final when full release hits, And yes too many factions is overkill and not needed but the theory of "fewer factions enables greater diveristy" i dont get... Yes you have some sub-factions from the same race but that don't mean's its the same. And when you want to play a barbarian or hele match only atleast you have some different choices. geting the right balance for factions is always challenging. :D And different factions like: Barbs/Hele/Romans.....sure will give the player unique playing style,s but that can also be for sub-factions, Maybe they speak the same language but that don't means they can't be unique and different from the other factions (When designed correct) you can have alot to be different and add different strategy's to the game.

    And when some else takes over then there will be changes most of the time then, And i like the changes of sub-factions for some nations then and when done right with enough to distinct historical from another.

    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.

    Agreed about balance and about every faction sub-faction sould have different playstyles and use of strategy

    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.

    Well like is said when someone else takes over there will be changes for good or worse depends how you look at it. But remove elements of strategy? please explain. And maybe a few more factions requires more balance but well worth it.

    (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...