Jump to content

John 5

Community Newbie
  • Posts

    4
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

John 5's Achievements

Tiro

Tiro (1/14)

6

Reputation

  1. Regarding the original post. Without a large advertising budget and/or a great plan, games get totally buried. Conversely, bad games can get good exposure (sales) with good advertising. In principle, any half decent game can have good sales with good advertising. It's not all about maximising sales, but sales give money to help improve the game, and do more marketing, so a virtuous circle effect. You have the most chance at 1st release. I co-authored a passion project game at Uni which we eventually remastered and released on Steam a few years back. 94% positive rated at ~900 reviews, but barely broke even if you costed up the labour. The other talking point, just for fun: Agree food is very important. In a siege, water supply was often the issue too. So much so that often castles and settlement locations were selected for the spring/well water supply. I don't think that would add much... ...but I think regarding gameplay , 'to be really accurate the biggest change would be' ...children. Implemented by a short time-lag between spawning people and fighting age. Then, if you have any sizable army defeat you better have good city defenses or it's game over. So you'd have more Pyrrhic Victory situations, and I guess other real tactics that currently don't work. It might make game tend toward one major decisive battle. In code it should be ok to test: Have a Age var for human Units, and say 30 seconds to adulthood, then have a proportional reduction in attack Damage points until that age. Visualisation could just scale the model x,y,z at the same rate (0.85 to 1.0). It would be subtle, but an experienced player could visually tell his opposing army was majority youth. Increasing the value of spying and game difficultly curve. Perhaps children could be taken away like Sheep... "The ashes were trampled into the Earth, and the blood became as snow. Who knows what they came for... weapons of steel, or murder? It was never known, for their leader rode to the south, while the children went north with the Vanir."
  2. Not something I genrerally agree with, but some games designers would say that it can harm enjoyment if things are too random, in that players become unsure if plans will work. That's why I said it would average out in larger group attacks. I think it would be a good thing to devalue single/low unit number harrasment with micro. Regarding Arrows also having Damage randomness. It would similarly make things a more unpredictable and gives more constant jeopardy (like combat). So even if an archer might only get 4 shots off at a cavalry charging them, if they get lucky and kill the rider, so be it. The other benefit that is much more realistic, is you don't have the cumulative hits of regular small wounds. I don't think that's how it works... you either are pretty healthy, but losing stamina, or you get a serious incapacitation. Encouraging constant monitoring of health stats is not very realistic or strategic. If done alot, it changes the gameplay and strategic thinking/feel of the game so I could understand Devs/exisitng player push back... it favours macro and statistical/odds based thinking and attacks plans, and makes micro with smaller groups less effective, which is my preference in RTS.
  3. Do any units give randomised damage? It could be useful to represend some weapon types. It would make combat more unpredictable in outcomes in skirmishes, but be predictable in larger battles as it would average out. You swing a powerful unweildy weapon, mostly it's D damage, but 1:10 it's Dx20, representing a fatal hit. Unweildy weapon units could be more open to projectiles to balance. This would have a load of variance and emergent tactics. EG: These units would be best coupled with armour upgrades, as the longer they live in a melee the more times they get their big hits in.
  4. I've not played for a while but Rams were the biggest gameplay annoyance for me. They broke emersion for me by being illogically hard to kill by infanty/troops that got along side. I presumed they would be being pushed around by men inside. So if undefended and enemy infantry get alongside, the Ram crew would be very vunlnerable and slaughtered. It seemed wrong when a lot of soldiers couldn't stop a single undefended Ram quickly. It's not a sealed tank. I'd suggest it should be quite weak against infantry, more so than cavalry, as the weakness relates to the idea that people on foot could quickly get inside, or stab inside, and wipe out the crew. This weakness could be relative to if the Ram is Moving/Ramming. So if it's stopped, the crew can be 'defending themselves' and increase its defence much higher but if it's Moving/Ramming then they are very vulnerable to infantry (unless extra infantry inside). This would need infantry to be able to keep up with the ram.
×
×
  • Create New...