feneur

Administrative Lead
  • Content count

    8,947
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    88

feneur last won the day on February 27

feneur had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,225 Excellent

6 Followers

About feneur

  • Rank
    Cartographer of imaginary worlds
  • Birthday 08/26/1985

Previous Fields

  • First Name
    Erik
  • Last Name
    Johansson
  • Skype ID
    feneur_erik

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://feneur.com

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    A small town in south-eastern Sweden
  • Interests
    Reading, reading and reading =) I do also enjoy being in the forest, walking, painting, drawing, taking photos, playing around in Photoshop and other graphics programs, writing, creating crosswords, spending time with my friends. Playing computer games, mostly RTSs, why else would I be here. As if that wasn't enough I do also have some plants to take care of, and from time to time I sculpt using plaster.
  • Badges
    Donator Indiegogo

Recent Profile Visitors

2,064 profile views
  1. I would say it's more like a café keeping a type of cookie on the menu, even if it's similar to other cookies, and even though shelf space etc limits the number of different types of cookies. Is it a good idea or a bad idea? I'd say it depends on whether or not enough people like having access to that type of cookie. And the same applies to the factions in the game, do enough people like to have that variety in the Hellenistic factions? And is it possible for them to be different enough to make them interesting to play? I don't know, but as far as I can tell people do appreciate the variety they add to the Hellenes. If anything it's the opposite I'd say, it's during the Alpha phase we can afford to be flexible. That said I would say that it is (i.e. at the moment, and depending on the people in the team and current opinions) the team's decision not to add any more factions for part one at all. But as with everything else it could change at a later date. I do however think that it is a good idea to be very strict with changing things on this level, especially since we are getting close to Beta. If we remove factions people are going to get disappointed, work that has already been put into them will be wasted, and since all limits are at least somewhat arbitrary there is some merit to staying with the ones we already have decided upon. Otherwise where do we draw the line? There has been plenty of arguments as to why the Iberians should be split up into at least two factions if not more. At the very least the author of Delenda Est has argued for adding another Hellenistic faction: the Thebans, and I do recall someone else arguing for having some other Hellenistic factions as well. There are plenty of other factions which could be added, of them it's probably the Scythians which are the most interesting imho. It is impossible to make a perfect decision though (there will always be someone who is disappointed, and arguments as to why you should have made a different decision), so the question is where do you draw the line and say "these are the factions we are going to include". I think it's better to have the focus gained from not having to consider the question again, and again, even if it does mean that we might be missing out on some interesting factions.
  2. To me the main reason why we're keeping all these Hellenistic factions is to not throw away the work that's already been done. I personally would probably have preferred to have fewer Hellenistic factions, and perhaps add one or two others, but it's not really the matter what I or anyone else think personally. What matters is what makes sense for the game, and from a development point of view. To me it's hard to argue for adding more factions as it's a lot of work even maintaining the ones we have and make sure they are as interesting to play as they can, and will be as balanced as they can be. I still don't think it's a good way to go to remove factions we already have though. Both because that would mean that the work put into them would have been wasted, and because we have said that the game will include these civilizations. Sure sometimes you have to change things, and remove things, even though you have said they will be included, but to remove something just to add something else instead doesn't seem like a good way to go. While I sometimes do use the word civilizations as well I prefer factions as the word civilization has some problematic connotations, i.e. is a group of people more or less civilized, or for that matter how do you define exactly what group of people is a civilization. A faction is simply a group that's been set apart as a unified group for this game, so it doesn't carry the same problems.
  3. What do you think it would add to the game? As I see it it does have the good effect of being possible to intercept by the other players, which would add one more thing one could do to affect the outcome of the game. I do think it does at the very least have some things which would have to be thought through before adding though. Using a trader would mean that you would not only be losing resources because you are giving them to someone, you would also lose the ability to use the trader to gain more resources during the time it's used to deliver the tribute. I think that would mean people are less likely to tribute resources, and if it's not used/rarely used I think that's an argument against it. Especially since it's something that can make e.g. a situation where one player is focused on by the enemies more fair/balanced as the allies can easily help by tributing resources, but if you would have to send traders through a battle-field to help out it would be a lot harder to do. It also means that it's harder for a player who is just about to be defeated to send any remaining resources to their team mates, but I guess that could be seen as a good thing if you want matches to be over sooner/give bigger benefits to the winning team. When giving tribute to an enemy it would give the added risk of someone else intercepting it etc, but I think it would add more angry players than benefits ("did you really send a tribute? you might be saying that you did, and that someone else destroyed it, but how would I know?" etc). Maybe it can be seen as an added dimension, but to me it seems like a lot of hassle, for a small added benefit.
  4. Selection is defined by a box as far as I know, and not really depending on the model or animation. At least that's the case for buildings, I'm not sure if it differs with units/animals.
  5. I've hidden three recent posts because they were unrelated to the topic, and if anything only could serve to cause conflict. If someone wants to be sure that others take their opinions/suggestions seriously I would advise to not bring up old conflicts but rather new ideas
  6. It's only for random maps, change the first dropdown list (Map type) to be random rather than scenario or skirmish (These maps are handmade, so they come with the players they were made to feature. Random maps are put together by the game from a script and based on the settings you choose, so they are more flexible.)
  7. Unless I'm mistaken that means that the AI will build up its civilization, but will not set out to attack you. Any units you send near it will still be attacked though.
  8. Just realized there is the option to, if you choose to play on a random map, choose to only have one player on the map, yourself.
  9. You can still destroy buildings, it's just not the default action because we want people to discover the capture mechanic (Use Ctrl+click to attack rather than capture, and siege weapons will always destroy, also it's easier to capture a building when it's lower on health.)
  10. If you want to keep an opponent on the map to fight eventually you can set the AI difficulty to Sandbox (then it will not attack you). I think you could do that, and then set the victory condition to Wonder and you could still win the game when you want without having to fight (though I'm not 100% sure the AI won't build a wonder eventually, someone else will have to tell you about that). If you just want to build and don't worry about another player (and don't care about winning after you've built up your civilization), just use the developer controls (Alt+D to bring up), select Reveal Map, then Control all units, and then delete all the opponents units. That will give you a win dialog, but you can just select no and continue building as much as you like (I don't know how well it works with saved games, but at least for a single play session it should work fine, and there's no harm in testing -- apart from lost time I guess).
  11. Are you using the version from this thread? Because if so it shouldn't be expected to work as it's for the Alpha 17 version of 0 A.D. The version in is the one which is supposed to work with Alpha 21 of 0 A.D.
  12. I really doubt we can use this as it most likely is distinct enough to be copyrighted. Better to do something unique anyway
  13. I would have to agree with @wowgetoffyourcellphone, if I remember correctly that area is where the most pyramids in the world are to be found, so that would be really nice to both highlight (to teach people) and make them stand out from the other civilizations.
  14. Shouldn't it be possible to do via techs though? I.e. you have to make the choice to research "Send embassy to x civ" and "Send embassy to y civ" techs before you can build the buildings, then they could have no limits for the amount of buildings.
  15. I might have missed it as I haven't read this thread very closely, but what is it that makes the Kushites special from a game play perspective?