Jump to content

Giotto

Community Members
  • Posts

    145
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by Giotto

  1. Hi. This has been a problem for a while but i haven't bothered to post this as a error yet. Sorry if there is already a similar topic, i did a search but found nothing.

    The issue is that when i am disconnected from a LAN game, as sometimes happens due to the poor quality of one of our computers, i rejoin but get an "out of sync error". This means that both players have slightly different games going on that slowly diverge from each other over time. I can't quit and rejoin either. The error does not turn up the second time, but the game remains out of sync. It's really annoying as you can imagine. Particularly when you find out that your ally was destroyed 10 mins ago. 

    I am running the game on Ubuntu and our WiFi connection is good.  Hope you know what's going on and if it will be solved at some point.

  2. That is true. Not a huge difference, but yes, when you expand you get a predefined set of land. Not to say that would be a better design than what 0ad has (i do like how it is now), but i imagine predefined sections would be good for ensuring one cannot create too many chokeholds, as well as preventing those annoying situations where you expand, but can't fit a wall in due to a forest or something. Still, the current system is fine in my opinion.

    On the point about the line, it seems to be much wider, has a different (less harsh) color, and has some gradual alpha transition.

  3. I recently bumped into this game called northgard. It's in early access and i noticed it had similar mechanics to 0ad in some ways. The territory concept is the same, and a lot of the art feels like the Gauls or Britons. I have played it for an hour now, and it is quite different to 0ad, but can't shake that feeling that it is somehow similar.

    Anyway, it wasn't really my type of game, but here are some screenshots and maybe if people are interested in gameplay ideas, check it out.

     

    images (20).jpg

    images (19).jpg

    images (18).jpg

    • Like 1
  4. I really like the concept of individual city phases but I also think there is a need for general upgrades. The general upgrades would be available as they are at the civic centre and would unlock technology's such as stone towers etc. The city phases would upgrade to use these new technology's. A level 1 city would have wooded towers, a level 2 city would have stone ones.

  5. It is vital that the upgrades are polar/very different. At present it is hard to tell how an upgrade has really helped and whether it is worth getting. What you choose needs to have an impact on or reflect your game strategy.

    e.g (stage 3)

    Option 1- choice to join some empire - 20% cost reduction to everything.

    Option 2- some kind of extra training thing - 50% stronger ranged units.

    Option 1 should be chosen if you have a strong economy and can thus pump out lots of troops.

    Option 2 should be chosen if you either have a strong ranged army or are planing on defending.

    Overall I think this is a great idea but it needs to have an impact on gameplay otherwise it is pointless.

    Also why not change the name of some of the upgrades to fit the civilisation?

  6. I think having options as in age of mythology is very appealing and adds unique strategical value to the game. It does not need to be complicated it just needs to be visible and clear to the player what they get from it. Fundamentally I think this is the manifestation of players want for more technology's, particularly either/or ones as in alpha 16 (though those ones had little strategic value, but if they were grouped together?)

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...