Jump to content

Dade

Community Members
  • Content Count

    57
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

36 Excellent

1 Follower

About Dade

  • Rank
    Discens

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    https://tilellit.pro
  • Skype
    dsbartolucci

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Tenerife

Recent Profile Visitors

867 profile views
  1. Thanks for sharing your pov on this topic @JC (naval supremacist) I've created a separate thread sharing my ideas.
  2. From personal experience with A23 and reading all the forum posts I can, I'd like to summarize my own suggestions/features that could be of interest for the next release. I'd try to be as synthetic as possible, but of course we can develop this ideas further if there is interest/discussion. Siege engines Battering rams. Actually I find even sword cavs to have problems while chasing a retreating rams, lets not even talk about walking soldiers Should have a lower base speed. Garrison units inside rams should increase the speed and even damage a bit Pykes and spear soldiers should be able to damage them, to simulate the fact a ram is driven by other soldiers which will take damage from the enemy (but I think this would need to differentiate between archers and pykes/spears damage) Bolts. By far the most efficient tool to kill enemies I have seen on A23 They need to be more vulnerable, specially when chased on retreat with again another base movement speed reduction It could be nice to "garrison" units inside which could increase rate of fire and it's defenses. If this can be packed with additional animations showing the soldiers of that units, could be awesome Catapults Packing and unpacking speed should be raised, this would emphasize on the decision making when using them. Actually players can pack and unpack them soon enough to deny their opponents the possibility to retaliate when attack goes wrong Should be easier to take down, with incremental resistance with garrisoned units Siege towers. Actually have little to no use Same as battering rams, should get lower base speed and increase it with garrisoned units but walking units should be still able to catch it They should be able to capture at least certain targets (castles, cc, military colonies and towers, to not make them OP) to better define their role into the battlefield while being able to keep attacking - maybe at a slower rate when capturing War elephants They could have some extra armors in general but most important they must deal some damage around them, if possible only while walking to better simulate their use Ranged infantry units You may already know my opinion from other posts, IMO it's not about "ranged/slingers win games" but about choice. Actually there's dominant choice when composing an army: few frontline units (if any) and about 10 times those units as ranged. From this dominant choice, Bretons arise as the first choice civ: "one-size-fits-all" slingers from the beginning, faster eco, the security of being hard to be rushed and a fair possibility to be the first one to attack the enemy. Archers New feature: suppression. I will explain this later Minimal range, same idea of towers. If a unit enters this minimal range, it cannot be shot and the archer need to fall back Javelins New feature: suppression. I will explain this later Slingers New feature: suppression. I will explain this later Same health than other units maybe but definitely much less armor Lower base damage, movement speed (they carry rocks), attack speed and remove blast damage but let them be improved by techs: Clay ammunition: extends range and attack speed Casted lead ammunition: improves damage Also note Carthagians merc slingers should have a bit better stats than others, as Balearic Slingers were widely known in the ancient era for their capability. I guess this should also includes Iberians slingers, but I am not sure if that's historically accurate. Features Melee infantry block probability. Positional damage is still on developement, wouldn't be easier to add a block probability to incoming attacks meanwhile? I am probably wrong, but a similar process used from the game when deciding if an arrow hits or not, could be used to determine if a shielded unit blocks incoming damage or not Suppresion. Archers and slingers should slow enemy units to better reflect their support role in the battlefield. Spears, but specially pykes, should also slow enemy cavs to increase their utility on the battlefield. Terrain as strategic factor River crossing All units should move much slower when walking on water Siege engines should not be able to cross rivers, but need to be transported instead Trees Slows cavs, as it's harder to maneuver Protect from ranged attacks (maybe block feature related?) Elevated places. I am not sure about this, but I am pretty sure the game already takes into account if a unit is on a higher place to extend their attack range. However, it should also be taken into account to extend their vision range A LOT more. This is specially true for towers and vision towers. I am sure I left something behind, but probably it's enough to discuss for now. I hope you all enjoy the post and join a productive discussion.
  3. I remember seeing a player called JC, but I never see him again on my gaming sessions. That's still 1 player playing one "off-the-meta" civs, and I doubt he use them on 1v1.
  4. Sorry if I explained myself wrong, but I didn't say slingers wins games alone. Whenever I loose, it's either my fault or the opponent is better than me, period. I am just saying there's a dominant choice: civs with slingers. Either to thrive stronger economies or directly smash the opponent. How many non-casual players have you ever seen in lobby playing Spartans, Macedonians or Persians? Hell, Kushites looks awesome and on paper they should be THE counter to slingers/rams civs (swordsmans and sword cav), but I hardly see someone playing them. My point is pretty simple, Rome conquered almost the entire known world with gladius, not throwing rocks to their opponents. Same probably applies to any other civilization. I never heard of an ancient castle siege with only ranged units (you can include bolts shooters here too) supporting their siege engines and I doubt I will ever will. Actually on 0 A.D., that's the current meta of 95% of the games also because its much easier and safer - most of the time - to destroy structures than conquer them, which is completely illogical from my point of view. If we consider this is an issue, there are many but I am trying to update myself on 0 A.D. development before saying something which is already planned.
  5. I've been playing this days after a long break and I think I understand what OP is talking about. Basically, there's a dominant choice with civs as far I have played this week: civs with slingers. After that, there's no real strategy other than spam the most slingers you can, put something in front of them (will depend on the selected civ) and smash at least the first line of defense of your opponent. Ever heard on history class about a slinger only army ripping apart soldiers, civilians, siege engines and structures themselves? Well, that's the trend actually of almost every single multiplayer game. I've watched some of the 0 A.D. Champions Cup games (sorry but I could not find the original videos in english) and you can see it on your own. The other variant is skirmisher cav (yes, more ranged xD) to harass/rush the enemy. Anything else is residual. Don't get me wrong, A23 is great and I really enjoyed coming back to play, but saying ranged is balanced at least optimistic. On the other hand, while it's true that ranked system can be a bit "primitive", a ranking system like LoL isn't the point actually (tiny playerbase). Also consider @thankforpie there are usually changes every release that modify the gameplay.
  6. Dade

    Proposal

    Welcome to any multiplayer videogame reality
  7. As humble (and n00b) player, cavalry shouldn't take 2 population slots instead of 1? I am not complaining for the current 'meta' (that could always change) it's just I feel it should reflect the fact there are both soldiers and horses to feed. If I am not wrong, elephants already take 3 population slots but cavalry it's still taking 1. I think it should be taken into consideration for either this - great - mod or the game itself.
  8. I had this problem too, but I am using an unattended Win10. Will post the stuff if it happens again
  9. @JuKu96 you can see the dedicated server feature being developed on trac.
  10. @bb_ assuming "DADE’S + BB + BONUS TRACK - MATCH SETUP" is the best candidate: TOOLTIPS For tooltips I already mentioned we could create ones with equal or similar behavior to Bootstrap Framework (DEMO LINK). This requires some dependencies, but there are others options as Tippy or TTips for example. I am wrong assuming we can 'easily' integrate other JavaScripts into the game? (in case current Tooltips coded can't do that by setting a new style) SCREEN SIZE On first place, I considered 1366x768 resolutions as the lowest taking into account STEAM Survey. On the other hand, WildFire telemetry unfortunately does not offer such information and from JSON file we can't discriminate from date to try visualize the current state of users configs, so I am afraid it's not possible to get exact conclusions. However, considering the engine already calculate somehow client area to position GUI objects, can't it show a "legacy" and "current" UI depending on max client area size as follows: Legacy would be pretty similar to what we have right now. Maybe something similar to "DADE’S + BB + BONUS TRACK - MATCH SETUP" without icons and with the only objective of assuring compatibility for everyone, minimalist and efficient. Current could focus on standard gaming screen and above (1366x768) which should cover almost 95% of current gaming PCs, fancy and elegant. ICONS SIZE AND NUMBERS I understand your concerns, but I never intended to let the icons so big, specially if the final plan is to really display them all and not only a few relevant/most consulted ones. But even in case we want to put them all at any cost, we could always resize them to fit the next ones. For example: current icons sizes could be reduced by half without loosing essence and details, so you almost have 2 lines of possible icons. On the other hand, if the thing I said about "legacy" and "current" UI wouldn't be possible, this could still apply by setting a relevant amount of icons. PS: Just in case is not clear enough, my knowledge of Javascript is still limited but I can already work with XML files, so you won't be alone in this trip if you want an extra pair of hands.
  11. @bb_ first of all thx for pointing me in the right direction yesterday on IRC. IMO a mix between your latest 2 screenshots could be the best solution. I believe map settings should be easier and quick to access, it's probably what many players will usually use the most. This, mixed with the rest of buttons (duplicates on the window, but it would save time) below the maps settings should make it. The main problem with this is space, getting rid of map title, "More Options" button and lowering height (when no erradicate) the text-box below, will give all space and more. Another option could be setting those buttons on the bottom side, but that's not likely 'user-friendly' (having similar functionality buttons near each other should be priority). If you wan't a completely different approach, what about this: resize the map image (keeping it square) and use image buttons at the right to access "More Options" sections/divisions. My only concern is it may get too bloaty, specially if we implement my suggestion of the settings icons. Maybe is stupid, but I make some Draw files that maybe can help to better discuss or take decisions (tell me if I have to change names). Feel free to edit it at will a 0AD_GameSetup_UI.odg 0AD_GameSetup_UI.pdf
  12. Hi all, having the opportunity to play A22 after so much time really delighted me and by all means I wish to try help the project form my little knowledge. So here I am! It's something I have been thinking a lot on other releases but my extreme laziness prevent me to try out (well I have to confess I played on A20 trying to make an alternative ingame UI, but I lost those files ). CONCEPT I always felt the "More Options" button was ok to admin the room, but the info inside it should be much more visible to all players without the need of any "More Options" button. Why not bring that information directly to players in the room? This is my proposal to achieve it. The icons used in this early patch/mod are from within the game, but my idea is to use more specific icons if they idea fits. Last but not least, this is just a proof-of-concept, I see still a lot of margin to improve this. Enough background! Lets get to the options. BOTTOM MORE OPTIONS ICONS This was my first attempt to achieve my objectives. The bottom side of the game room has plenty of space to accommodate some icons, so why not there? I reviewed some of the documentation, started to play on my own et voilá there we have some new graphics on game room bringing some life and personality. Items are organized as they appear on the "More Options" window, but I'd prefer to place the ones with text earlier and then the rest. MIDDLE MORE OPTIONS ICONS You know that sensations when you finish a job thinking you could have done better? That brought me to this second option, giving much more relevance to the game information and providing a much clearer separation from players list and chat window. IMO this is a much better implementation, as we also save time from finding another place for certain buttons tooltips (on a side note, some are hardly visible already when using "More Options" window). ICONS CONCEPT Even with this messy icons being used right now, the concept is much simpler: Icons accompanied by strings should be colored by default as those are active options on the game Boolean options icons should have two version: colored (enabled) and grey (disabled). Victory Condition and Initial Resources icons could change depending of the option selected. BONUS TRACK Think that was all?!?!? Right side of the Games Room could receive a fresh rework: "More Options" button can be moved (or even removed, using the icons as option toggles for room admins) to bottom or inline with icons. Text from within the right-bottom corner could be used as tooltips (Bootstrap like) over the icons. Having more space in this section we can add some extra folklore with a nice looking ancient-papyrus-style description of the map which is going to be played. Questions? Suggestions? Gallows and torches from the horizon? Thanks for your time reading this!
  13. I don't have such a problems, but maybe the experience differs from a connection to another. Whenever we get the numbers of League or WoW we should do that for sure if we don't want to get crazy on lobby hah Will be the same, but on the other hands I think devs are working on a standalone dedicated server executable Won't this solution add bandwidth usage? Clients still need to be synchronized in order to play the game properly (I am not an RTS expert though)
×
×
  • Create New...