Jump to content

jd823592

Community Members
  • Content Count

    48
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About jd823592

  • Rank
    Discens
  1. If you do not enforce any separation you lose the possibility of having matches where two moderate players beat one excelent player with someone who makes bad decisions just by cutting their economical growth. Indeed not separated game would also be fun. But what i am suggesting is delegating tasks to different players, when one player fails, the whole nation gets wiped out... you endeed could have a scenario where one player is given cavalry, the other archers and so on. But that is too much restrictive and not very variable.
  2. The separation was ment to enforce players to take care of their allies better. If there is no separation then it is not much different from playing two different allied nations and trading resources.
  3. Hello, today i got an idea of what i would like to have in RTS multiplayer and have not found yet: 2 vs 2 players operating 2 nations, one player taking care of army and one taking care of economy. I know that most units can be used to gather resources and build buildings but maybe that could be altered for this mode of game. Possible implementation: 2n players, 2 teams all players in the same team are assigned the same nation (fraction/...) players can select to be: army (only fortification and barracks can be built; no resources gathered on their own) economical (only mills/farms/...; no serious forces or protection) economical players would automatically provide fraction of gathered resources to the army, army could maybe give some siezed resources to economical players. whole enemy team in the same color, while all alies could be distinguished Vision: 1 economical player 2 army generals (navy / infantry and cavalry) What do you think?
  4. I believe it would be nice if fortification (not towers) were more neutral thing (it is just a pile of stones anyway). What i would expect is that when you capture the inside of the fortified area you also control the fortification. i am pretty sure you would want to test for the inside of a fortified area but some kind of aura dictating the loyalty of walls could be involved.
  5. a different idea.. maybe it might be good if after the china mod gets stable it gets into the main game (when there is time to do it).. i think it could be good
  6. maybe great show off but having the civ extra makes it uncomfortable for the players when getting the whole content. It might be also difficult to keep the both mods compatible... if it would be just one mod it would work out better in my opinion
  7. Why dont you just put the resources together and incorporate the china in the original 0ad? how great would that be?
  8. These are names i found (obviously no D...): This also does not look very promissing:
  9. just to put the image to some use i made: http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/3215/0ad.png if thats not an insult to 0 A.D. title
  10. Hello, i find the current icons not to fit in the game.. i tried to make my own which didnt turn out well: http://img545.imageshack.us/img545/4905/swordsshield.png but i wanted to know if someone agrees with me that the actual icons look too pixelized maybe with bad color palette i dont mean it as any kind of offence, i am not able to manage it any better than what i have done as mentioned above maybe its already planned to tune the icons in future, in that case disregard this post
  11. lag might be related to graphical drivers i believe.. the GUI's functionality is good but the frames (borders and background) dont look so great in game.. menus are wonderful but the bar with map and unit info isnt appealing
  12. It is true that good RTS games dont appear nowadays as much as they have earlier. Thats sad. I think games like AoE were the best strategies ever and those revolutionary new strategic games are no fun.
×
×
  • Create New...