Jump to content

DarcReaver

Community Members
  • Content count

    264
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

DarcReaver last won the day on October 11

DarcReaver had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

207 Excellent

1 Follower

About DarcReaver

  • Rank
    Duplicarius
  • Birthday 05/18/1988

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    Modding, gameplay development, sound editing

Recent Profile Visitors

699 profile views
  1. bad looser

    Where's the train?
  2. Suggestions for 0 A.D.

    this topic in a nutshell: Independant of that I'd like to add that the combat system is lacking. There should be more damage types/armourtypes available to create more differences between unit types. This could also be achieved by using armour/penetration values.
  3. Really?

    Well it isn't really beneficial to start discussing whether this is OP or not. I do believe you - the issue is pretty simple: having mobile harassment earlygame in a game like this is a large advantage and result of sloppy/bad faction design and another example why a proper gameplay dev (team) is needed since the team doesn't understand how the game mechanics of RTS games work/why and which mechanics are fun and rewarding for player's experience. I just took these games as a very random example of how boring, strategically unattractive, repetitive and unrewarding the tech demo is in multiplayer (I just typed in 0 ad multiplayer games on youtube and age of empires II multiplayer and took some random games from page 1 which were no single player 'let's play' videos to prove my point). If I'd play more than like 5 of these games I'd immediately ditch it and play something else because it sucks (just like I did with Age of Empires 1 after playing against those weird vietnamese players). And this is not because of bad balance, but because it simply sucks to have no variety of choices. Which leads back to lack of a proper game design.
  4. Really?

    Dude this doesn't matter that you can post game expamples of Pros beating other pros on Arabia or another map. Because AoE offers more POSSIBLE strategies because of a better game design and more VIABLE strategies because of better balance. Also the game usually does not end with a Flush in AoE but instead with more tactical choices depending on the civ matchup AFTER the rush, which consists of adding multiple additional units, researching unit lines to counter enemy unit lines (like getting champions/halbs against people going cavalry upgrades) or getting trash units + archers, or mobile harassment forces (like woadies, Boyars or whatever) or getting siege to counter mass trash or getting monks to convert powerful enemy units or whatever. This isn't present in 0 AD because IT ISN'T EXISTANT. Because the game design is unfinished, incoherent and unbalanced and there are only a couple POSSIBLE strategies and only a few VIABLE strategies, which limits both singleplayer and multiplayer. Just accept it instead of arguing against it.
  5. Really?

    Yes the suspense in this game is killing me literally. Especially the strategical choice of building a clump of cavalry units and sending it over to the enemy after booming for like 15 minutes. AoE II is nowhere near this strategical finesse with all its unit line upgrades, different military building paths and overall tech trees, and stuff like dark age rushing, feudal scout rush or archer flsuhing etc. This one aswell. 100 camel archers are really much better gameplay than AoE II.
  6. Really?

    Okay then compare this: to this It's pretty self explanatory why 0 ad is inferior to Age II by miles.
  7. Really?

    Yes. But now think about the following: You have a very low limit for POSSIBLE strategies in 0 AD because the design is weak. You have even less VIABLE strategies becausethe bad unit balance. But now if you invest dozens/hundreds of hours to get the current game design balanced you still end up with a very low amount of POSSIBLE strategies. This makes me question: why would this be worth the effort? Why not make the game design good first and then balance the good game design to get a good game experience?
  8. Really?

    Well I admit I was a bit harsh. However, reading these posts "prove me" "give me exact points" "you don't know stuff I know it better" kind of posts seriously start to annoy me on these forums. Especially from people who have no clue and experience with game making in the first place. It's repeating stuff again and again and again and again and again without any benefit for anyone.
  9. Really?

    He directly asked me to show my points. And since I've already written down a massive essay and contributed the stuff he can just go ahead and read those topics to get on the same level of knowledge as me. I simply don't want to waste my time to keep repeating and repeating my points. And no, I didn't showcase my idea ingame because 1) gameplay/engine features are missing, 2) mods are getting no attention (look at DE, which is levels ahead in terms of proper game design than v0AD gameplay) and 3) I have other projects to work on which are way more useful than discussing with game design rookies, or some ignorant/incompetent coders about issues they don't seem to understand. Well yes, you have a COUPLE of options. However, this isn't nearly comparable to a "real" Age of Empires 2, a Starcraft game or any other game that is played by a larger community in competition. Also see this, as I'm trying to explain my point: A lack of POSSIBLE strategies is a result of bad game design. A lack of balance results in a lack of VIABLE strategies. This is a major difference. Against AI in AoE 1 you can spam short sword soldiers and still be able win. Or play with the units you want. Or walling your city, go iron age with like 30 pop and then spam elephants as first military unit. But in MP you will get destroyed by cav archers 9/10 times. However, 0 AD doesn't offer you more than 4 basic units, like a couple of siege weapons and a few weapon techs.
  10. Really?

    So you agree that a game with lack of strategical choices is bad because this results in bad balance and makes it less fun for the majority of players, am I right?
  11. Really?

    So? You yourself said the basic buildorder is the same for most civs, I just said that you're correct by stating the default 22 pop for landmaps. How this fact that a 22 pop feudal doesn't work on water maps make the situation on 0 AD better?
  12. Really?

    Nope it's not enough. There are some tactical choices indeed. military unit training start <-> economic unit training start military building start <-> ecnomonic building start Then you can select between a variety of earlygame units (spear/swordman, slinger/skirmisher, vacalry A/B) All from the start, with no further strategical choices required. AND after that you spam champions/elite units because they're superior to all earlygame units, buildings and other units. And that's about it. And that's a problem. @Grugnas Indeed, Starcraft is also a great game with lots of strategical and tactical depth.
  13. Really?

    If I watch multiplayer all I see are vietnamese players rushing to bronze age, research the techs for herdings etc. and then spam cav archers from 4-6 archery ranges, so I doubt that you need more that you cannot win with only getting one unit. This has to do with Assyrian free archers +40% rate of fire though. The comparison to AoE is actually a bad example, I admit. Mainly because AoE was made when multiplayer/competitive gaming wasn't really a thing in 1995/96. At least not the way it has become in the last 10-15 years. It's good for singleplayer tho. About AoE II: the initial buildorder is the same indeed, 22 pop -> feudal. But after that you have lots of strategical and tactical options. Way more than 0 AD has (or even AoE). Which is the reason why AoE II is a popular league game, and AoE I isn't (although AoE I has other reasons like missing some technical features that make the game more easy to install/play than AoE II because AoE II is newer).
  14. Really?

    Because AoE II out of the AoE game series is the only community I'd consider to be competitive. And this is because AoE II is a great game with many nice game mechanics and a lot of strategical and tactical depth PLUS various options to micro. So you're playing AoE 1 I suppose? Then I'll adjust the questions slightly, the answer will be most likely the same though. Although multiplayer in AoE 1 is pretty dull aswell. Assyrian + cav archer spam > all anyways, so I sort of understand why you enjoy 0 AD. But at least you can play stuff like Minoan comp archer spam or mass legions with Chosons or tower rush with Romans. Anyways. "So tell me, how many viable game options, depending on maptype (nomad, highlands, islands/coasts) and different military openings are in AoE? How many viable mid-game options (dependant on your civ) are ingame? How luck dependant is the game? Are there classic "phases" of earlygame/midgame/lategame in which you do certain meta strategies? How does lategame trash wars work and how are they influenced by factions ingame? How does map control work? Difference between playing pockets and flank positions? General buildorders for civs? And how many do you have in 0 AD? And how are these point contained in 0 AD? "
  15. Really?

    Here. Also please focus on the questions I asked you.
×