Jump to content

iNcog

Community Members
  • Content Count

    326
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by iNcog

  1. Well put. I'm not sure how other games handle turn rates, but it's definitely better for it to be as low as possible. Naturally, lag is also a pretty big concern so the obvious solution is to NOT just turn down the turn rate and call it a day. I'm wondering a little more about the dynamic turn rate. It could be something quite difficult to implement? Or, theoretically speaking, could a mod be made with an emphasis on performance (allowing for turn rates to be lowered)? Unfortunately that would not sync with the 0 AD version of people having the normal version. Quite a pickle. As for the cursor issue, I think I've figured out. Units are selected on mouse-up, rather than mouse down. There are two "clicks" when you click a button, one click down, one click when it's released. Buildings are selected on mouse up, so you need to release the click in order to select the unit. If you move the cursor when the click is down, you start a drag box. I think that's where that placebo issue is
  2. I meant for this: Though yeah I should probably have said so. if voobly for example (though could be anything, i just remember voobly because of AoC, there's also other services like game ranger), could connect two players directly, it might emulate LAN conditions and allow for 200ms turn times instead of 500 ms. though that might actually induce some lag if one player's set up isn't good enough, i guess
  3. OK, thanks for the answers and super interesting answers at that. 500ms is just too high for most people, unfortunately, though it's not like I don't see why it's there. Otherwise, would it be possible to considering using a service like Voobly in order to directly connect two players together in LAN mode?
  4. Quite a fast reply, you're as reliable as ever. ^^ Nice to see that. As for the technical discussion. In regards to clicks not perfectly registering, I use windows and have noticed this and the friend who made the remark to me as well also uses Windows (though he made the remarks maybe 2 years ago). So perhaps it's a windows problem. I can look into making a small video if you would like to see the issue first hand, if you want. As for turn time (that was the term I was looking for), what you're describing is pretty interesting. If the turn time were set to 30 ms, would that induce lag in single player, if the system ran the game at 30 fps for example? 30 fps -> 1/30 * 1000 = 33.3 ms so the game latency would be higher than the turn time latency, thus inducing lag. Is that how it works? 500 ms is quite a lot, you see, it's enough to turn off most veteran RTS players. That said, I can absolutely see the interest in running the game without lag. So it's a compromise. ^^ 200ms is also noticeable but it's still much better than 500 ms. Is turn time done dynamically in other games? I also fully understand how the project is managed so obviously any tall order is going to require a lot of resources in terms of man-power. I also notice you saying that value is hard-coded, but wouldn't it be a simple matter to just adjust the value (in the hard-code, obviously) so as to reduce the turn time a little? Edit: Oh and just to be sure: LAN does work with this game, correct?
  5. Hey guys, iNcog here, perhaps you remember me? It's been some time, so I don't think that most do. I've been keeping an eye on the game though. First off, I have to say that it's a pleasure to see the progress which has been made since I first tried the game in the 16th iteration. Very nice to see this, a huge kudos to the game devs still working on this project. As for my opening of this thread, well I have a few technical questions which I need to ask. I'd already tried to get a few of my friends from other RTS games (in particular, Age of Empires game and Starcraft) to try out 0 AD. The consensus from them is that the game has some very unique design and cool features, however there are a few technical issues which discourage them from actively picking up the game. Here are my questions (which stem partly from their remarks): - I notice a pretty significance in game responsiveness between playing single player and playing multiplayer from the lobby. The command lag (click somewhere, the unit only starts moving after about half a second) is quite important in multiplayer. From what I remember, this is due to the way servers are set up so that the game is equally responsive for everyone playing. I can't remember the technical terms, I just know that this is intentional. My question: Is this command lag present when playing in LAN or P2P set-ups (players directly connected)? - This is a small issue, but one which is enough to discourage people from playing 0 AD actively. When clicking a building or a unit, it seems that only 90% of the clicks register. Clicking is superior to drag-boxing in many circumstances, so I wanted to know if something could be done about the fact that some clicks simply don't select the unit or building? Just try clicking on the villager center / forum, you'll find that you need to click at its base rather than near the top of the building. Could perhaps an invisible or transparent texture get added to aid with that? Otherwise the game is really amazing. I love what I'm seeing. ^^
  6. Capturing is a huge mechanic, where capturing a cc is a two for one trade. The opponent loses a CC and you gain one. It's really huge when you do capture a CC. Compared to just losing a CC. I'm not sure of my thoughts on it. It could swing the course of the game immensely, really. Very interesting development. I have no strong opinions on this one. Just stopped by to say that it's great that the pathfinder is getting its well deserved fix. Great work you guys, you're all amazing.
  7. iNcog

    Mouse pointer

    sometimes i do indeed click on units or buildings without anything happening. sometimes for boxing units as well
  8. Interestingly, in Age of Empires 3, mercenaries were stronger than other units and used up more population slots. However, Native Americans used no population slots and they were limited in the amount that could be trained.
  9. yeah units should be given one type of damage, for the sake of simplicity imo
  10. Skirmishers give me the impression of "skirmish" which would make them harass units. I guess they need a least some speed. Archers give me the impression of soldiers which were drilled to shoot arrows at enemies while standing still. hmm well
  11. Sounds nice. Do you have any ideas about reducing their HP to them more fragile as units? Or do you feel they're already fragile enough?
  12. You should definitely record a few 1v1 s and upload them without commentary, it'd be interesting to watch for sure.
  13. 1 population carriers. I kind of like the idea on paper, but it'd be a mess to implement in the current unit set, I think. Personally I'd start with some dps reduction and a big HP reduction and see where things go from there. It's hard to get these numbers right, for sure.
  14. with 7 views, I think YOU are the one supporting them !^^
  15. svn since that's the version i used in the scenario editor what are your thoughts? i've only done a few tests and haven't been exhaustive much
  16. Sorry for double post but at least this allows to keep different ideas separate. I notice that a lot of units still have hybrid damage. I thought the idea, going forward, was that melee units would deal only hack damage, ranged units only pierce damage and siege units only crush damage. I think it would simplify things greatly to use this configuration.
  17. Do you know what the Socratic method is? The idea is that conflicting ideas and views should be presented to each other, with the eventual goal of promoting critical thinking. This is very important when having a discussion, you can't ignore what the other side has to say because then your own ideas won't move forward. Conflicting opinions are a good thing, it's what you want when you want to discuss a subject and give all parties a better understanding of the situation. If you think suggestions are bad, then you have to, at very least, give arguments as to why that's the case. Conflicting opinions should be discussed, not scoffed at. An idea which is the fruit of a good discussion is always much better than the idea of a single individual. As to the balance situation, I have mixed feelings. I think that the consensus is that spear cavalry are indeed not so great at the moment, so I'll just leave that and discuss ranged units versus melee units. I made a scenario in the editor where I pit 18 spear infantry units against 18 skirmishers. Interestingly enough, when I a-move the spear infantry into the skirmishers, the spear infantry win with roughly 8 or so units left. I tested this more than once. However, when I go the other side and micro the 18 skirmishers, the skirmishers can win with 15 or so (probably more if I micro more carefully) units left. This is done with hit and run but also spreading the skirmishers. So this is a good thing. I think that it's good design to have melee units win against ranged units in a melee fight. This means that positioning is what wins fight, not just the unit you chose to make. Very, very good. However, I feel that skirmishers (and probably most ranged units) are still too strong compared to their melee counterparts. I think that the general idea is that armies should have melee infantry as their backbone, not ranged units. As it currently is, I feel that ranged units aren't really support units (units which can turn the tide of a fight, but can't win them by themselves), they're truly the meat of an army. This is illustrated by the fact that 18 spear infantry units will beat 18 skirmishers with around 8 spear infantry units left over, however 36 spear infantry will lose to 36 skirmishers with 4 or so skirmishers left over. This is normal, the bigger armies get, the more the advantage goes to ranged units since they can fight easily; melee units have to move around. This lessens the importance of position, which in my opinion isn't really the way to go. As things stand currently, ranged units are simply quite strong and they're the units you really want to make. Melee units are the support units, since they protect ranged units against melee cavalry. This kind of interaction is one akin to that of Age of Empires 3, however the time period is quite differently. Historically speaking, I believe that tough melee units were the ones which won wars; ranged units were given a support role. As for swordsmen being too strong, interestingly enough 18 mauryan swordsmen lose consistently to 18 skirmishers. I'll need to do my tests with other units, obviously, but so far the point stands. I truly believe that ranged units should be given less HP or something, to give them a support emphasis rather than a standing army emphasis. Not to mention that skirmishers are faster than melee units as well.
  18. what happens if you a-move units in two seperate formations? only melee and only ranged, for example
  19. Sorry about that, just feel like it didn't deserve a new topic since i had like 2 questions. I feel like there should be a general discussion thing for this sort of thing, but ah it's fine. Where might I discuss this peacefully? Besides pathfinding, it's 0 A.D. next biggest flaw ;p
  20. Mother mercy please, no it's like jaws simulator you know that movie scared the @#$% out of me as a kid. never took a bath again. only showers
  21. While we're at it why does multiplayer lag? as in command lag. When you issue an order, the unit moves 200-500 ms afterwards. that's quite a lot. i heard it might have had something to do with multiplayer turns or something.
×
×
  • Create New...