Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
scythetwirler

Testing Propositions

Recommended Posts

Indeed the game isn't perfect but one thing is the game and another the people.

 

the "arcade mode"  the game works without some features.

  • territory
  • citizen soldiers ( mostly newcomers say this).
  • basicly emulates AoE 2. 

 

------

I have experience too, and the proposal are fine for other kind of game, not all of course, I agree with him in mostly of points.

but  citizen soldiers are the pillars of the game, is in the early development. I don't say if is removed is bad. But that way will be clone. Because the other games does this.

I don't take this personally ( about the developers). 

the only I disagree with his way of battalions. I play games with that mechanic. Praetorians and Battle from the Middle Earth.

I prefer of mix of them. This way you can create some flexible tactics, battalions are perfect for have total control.

see Total War, Rise and Fall of civilizations and Praetorians. The problem is in some cases and with our pathfinder you can need disband formations, may in some cases are in the map corridors where units need go individuals.

I'm talking from my experience and I'm a modder too. ;) 

IMG_4363.JPG

 

Ok if I were less indulgent with the team.

Yes there an issue about game design. We never follow it  or try to rewrite many things. That is why have this little problem, the other is the developenmt isn't speed as we want or players want.

 

we haven't people dedicated to the game. So at this point we have.

---- I was this way in the past and only get disagreement with team----

Edited by Lion.Kanzen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Feldfeld said:

What ? Sorry I have read almost nothing in the thread, but I want to say one thing, and it is that booming is clearly NOT the ultimate strategy to go with. Rushing can be very efficient and it is used very often. I don't know if that subject has been discussed already but if not i want explanations.

Booming is mostly used in strategy in the lobby.( in my experience)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

Booming is mostly used in strategy in the lobby.( in my experience)

Yes, but rushing is also used very often. borg (the best player) often uses sword cav rush for exemple. In 1v1 and in team games, early cav rush is used, and not only that, but the roman spear cav rush is considered overpowered by many players. So from my experience in lobby, booming is not the one and only strategy, and in each game we play, we don't know for sure what will happen in early game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Booming isn't the ultimate strategy since you could grow a specific eco in order to get cavalry asap and mine the enemy economy and gaining resources as loot from the killed gatherers and as resources carried by the killed unit, so I really can't understand why "attacking isn't worth the effort" since it could even be more rewarding than growing own economy. Learning from top players their successful strategies for winning 1v1 games teaches a lot, expecially that team games aren't always comparable to 1v1 games.

Most relevant techs looks quite expensive compare to others.

Since formations aren't implemented yet all the considerations done about such "battallion and formation system"  and unit counter don't have a solid enough base.

If you can't face units with their counters, you may want practice more instead of fighting with a formation system which kills micromanagement.

Since we play this game which is a RTS game, I suppose that we have in common the passion for this kind of games and using past experiences in other titles as curriculum in order to proof own correctness isn't really relevant since some players could even prefer and/or maybe find that a non formations system could have an higher skill cap (f.e. does Starcraft even use formations?).

Aren't celtic tribes fast enough compared to other factions in terms of building time and access to a variety of units in a specific time in the game? Looks like some factions are meant to be different from others in some aspects, but since the game is still in alpha, the way is still long considering that f.e. strategies drastically changed from the last alpha.

Edited by Grugnas
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I share your sentiments @Grugnas as a fellow player... especially after watching the good replays posted on this forum.

But the recurring theme is that these guys (Drac and Enrique) have enough playing, and development experiences to have a concrete, long-term vision for this game. And that we just can't grasp the things they're talking about. I'm only waiting for feneur to say something about this.

Regardless where this goes, I'll still love this game.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok. stop of that. now I know you best. so we are adults.

Spoiler

Also you're right heading towards the route of "never launch a game".

BECAUSE YOU DONT HAVE A GAME. YOU HAVE A BUNCH OF PIXELS THAT CAN FOLLOW ORDERS. THATS ALL!

I could just go ahead, take some of our Eastern Front Model assets, put them randomly together and say "LOOK THIS MY GAME ISNT IT BEAUTIFUL!?"

 

No is not my isn't beautiful yet. if were this way probably I dont suggest anything. The problem when you suggested something here you need convince the people many times.

But why the way forget the personal things and work over the thing.

Quote

I already did state numerous reasons why the citizen soldier concept is bad and I won't do it again. Just read the posts I wrote earlier inthis thread kthx.

Ok delete it isn't great thing.

 

Quote

I never said this should be another Battle for Middle Earth game. Neither did I say infinite resources. Apart from that your famrs already ARE infinite sources of food. the unit costs were just examples how training multiple units at once could be accomplished. It's an early concept, and even then it's more advanced than everything you've accomplished in over a year of development with at least half a dozen people or more. Enough said.

 

try ignore the things aren't relevant for you.

Quote

say BFME series and several other games had very interesting and refreshing ideas to mix up with traditional RTS traits.

Yes indeed but the last time we talk about battalions, we have different points of view so I'm based what I rermber.

AoEO have nice gameplay but have wrong artistic concepts for fan base. have things like Inventory merging RPG style.

Other example of game mechanics that is War Nations: the Spartans. they have inventory system and customizable units.

What is my point? there plenty of game have great mechanic that 0 A.d can emulate if the game want   be a  clone. 

Quote

I don't care too much about the actual implemetation. It should be in spirit of the citizen soldier system to live on but be less retarded.

Stop talking this way please, many people have their opinions. using retarded isn't good way. that why ask your age.

Quote

Dude I don't care for which civs this would be used. Be it celts or Iberians, I don't It's about creating a @#$%ing gameplay diversity, so stop nitpicking random details out of the concept and treat them as if they're 100% done. They're just examples how the civs can be made more diverse without turning everything upside down. And creating a concept that allows players to switch between civs fitting their playstyles more.

If you dont care...

you must be specific when are designing. if you dont put mind in little things all work can be ruined.

Quote

What? If you train multiple uints at once you create larger armies/economies, creating an illusion of actually managing a civilization, not a bunch of villagers with stones and sticks, why do you compare it to a random mobile game? I don't get the point.

are a example hahaha, i dont get why you are upset quickly. the game like that have units in battalions because are the most easy way to control. obviusly you need the game but I dont know.

to the point. not all time you need an huge army are many people don't use batch system.

not all  war are based in battles. the illusion of Empire is desired but is desired too the illusion of a poor village that becomes in a huge City from an empire. that why the game have phases.

Quote

well this was just an idea to get something rolling, and people to think about alternate ideas for combat/resource gathering interactions.

yes, I get you an idea, for example diversify resource extration and the point where you gather that.   Example try to get gold from a river.

Quote

The point is that 0ad is an uncreative, soulless clone of Age of Empires 2

the game wasn't planned to be another thing.(2001-2003) but in the last years, some developers like Wraitii wants change that.

but there is the problem, the fans dont want be change. be creative is a dangerous step, see the citizen soldiers, isn't complete creative idea. but is different but is refused for some people that wants the game be like others.

 

Quote

0 ad Pros:

- nice 3d graphics
- other civs than AoE II, and "historical accurate" with no fantasy involved
- interesting map layouts

-nice graphic isn't a huge advantage but are love by fans.

-yes but have their advantages when you are designing it. you need care of the every single details.

-maps can be better, the resources aren't (for me) are place near of CC. looks like Blizzard RTS placement.

Quote

as stated in the name "0" gameplay :D
- no original ideas to make civs differ from each other
- no military counter system
- no teching progression
- no cohesive teching options for military and economy
- no strategical depth
- no longtime motivation to actually get into the "game"
- chaotic feeling throughout every match, no red line in the game to get a progression effect for players playing it

-that why we are here getting ideas.to make factions different.

-A15 have this, I missed but no same.

-you can describe this deeply?

-because the lack of many features planned and not planned.

-that is relative. and you are using your point.

-Progression like what? Campaign? Character Progression like a kind RPG? or MMORTS?

 

Quote

Other negative points like missing game features, animation bugs and so on would be unfair since the game isnt finished at this point.

"would be", lol.

So we haven't game? we must delete our design document and concept and make a new game with actual art set?

 

What we must do change the genre to VR museom called 0 A.D? or contract a professional guy that was designer like Rick Goodman and make or own game? and dont steal others ideas?. Its a nice reflection. probably that the reason nobody plays our game.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, sphyrth said:

I share your sentiments @Grugnas as a fellow player... especially after watching the good replays posted on this forum.

But the recurring theme is that these guys (Drac and Enrique) have enough playing, and development experiences to have a concrete, long-term vision for this game. And that we just can't grasp the things they're talking about. I'm only waiting for feneur to say something about this.

Regardless where this goes, I'll still love this game.

meh.

Training units 1 by 1 is more efficient in terms of economy growing while using batching is clearly more useful when planning an attack, that's what the "batch of units"  is meant to be or at least as i interpreted, but since training batches of units is more easy to manage, the choice is more batches. The concept behind isn't that illogic as affirmed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I have the impression no one tries or dares to really touch/experiment with gameplay because "it would make XYZ complicated" and "AFAIK this already has been discussed 7 years ago ..." etc. (exaggerating a bit). Actually as soon as a ticket receives the "design" (= gameplay) keyword it's doomed into oblivion. It seems to me that the dev team is not well-rounded enough and especially is not covering certain tasks/roles/characters.

The Development becomes inefficient from A 16. I feel that. so the development start to becomes stalled. we are running out of volunteers. design document is only a point where the team is weak.(nobody starts to planning again). before I remember. guys similar to Justus creating Road map. we create a machine without soul and spirit. the game reflects that. for me the game isn't as bad that this guys suggested , I follow this game since 2004. so nobody promises me the game be different from AoE saga.

 

Quote

Resources

My conception is to keep food gather pretty much as it is now. Women are best at it. As darc say, almost every unit should cost food, with some exceptions. In my opinion, food should be the most important resource in that almost every unit use food -- mercs are exception in my mod. in DE, even ships cost food -- the crew.

Wood, yes, for most standard building and for ranged units like archers, javelin throwers, and ships, etc.

Stone for high level buildings and defensive buildings. 

Metal for sword units and powerful units like champions, elephants, etc. Used for most of the Blacksmith techs

can be nice this more from gameplay proposes than realistic. but i have a question  the entities mcosts only 2 resources or 3? if you only manage 2 resources peer unit is easy to player focus their economy.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Design > balance. Because Design creates balance and not the other way around. Having a @#$% design with good balance is worse than having a good design with worse balance. Because a good design can be improved and balance can be achieved.

obviusly, AoE 2, have this kind of "defect " based in historical bonus and counter system.

Quote

would like it if stone and metal were mined in 2 different ways. I would like to see "Mine Shafts" where you build a storehouse on a slot next to the mine shaft entrance to capture it, then you can garrison men inside to mine the metal. They exit to drop off their metal haul at the slotted storehouse. This is like Vespene Gas in Starcraft. Only one player can own a mine shaft at a time. You say, "What about allies???" I say, that's what teamwork is for, trading and tribute. Coordinate who owns which mine if you need to. If you suck at compromising on such things, then trade and tribute are your answers. An important aspect of the Mine Shaft is that if the player's storehouse is destroyed, the men inside the mine perish. 

another  neutral buildings to take. like this.

DA9.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Grugnas said:

.

If you can't face units with their counters, you may want practice more instead of fighting with a formation system which kills micromanagement.

Since we play this game which is a RTS game, I suppose that we have in common the passion for this kind of games and using past experiences in other titles as curriculum in order to proof own correctness isn't really relevant since some players could even prefer and/or maybe find that a non formations system could have an higher skill cap (f.e. does Starcraft even use formations?).

 

OMG at last. someone else see the weakness of only battalion based system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@DarcReaver - I totally understand your sentiments. There were times wherein if only I have the set of skills to make the changes myself, I would have done it quickly and presented it to the community. Like @Enrique said, your posts contain valid points of which we can learn. Will you be willing to be part of that process itself? We can have you in our team, if the Council will be okay with it. Can we do that @niektb? My only misgiving is to be patient with us - please do tone down the harshness level. We could definitely use your experience to the betterment of this game.

@Lion.Kanzen - I also appreciate the "loyalty" to 0 A.D. You have provided ideas and contributions to the group as well. Let us accept constructive criticisms whenever we get it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@shieldwolf23: Actually we already tried that with a Design Committee where f.e. @Karamel also participated in... Some results of that can be found in the Sybillae Vox gameplay mod, but likely it's not up to date anymore :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

About balance, I agree. I don't care if every single faction is balanced against every other faction. In fact, I want the factions to be imbalanced!!! I want challenging factions, I want uber factions, I want underdog factions. No, I don't want the perfect Protoss, Terrans, Zerg balance, where you try desperately to get a 33% victory rate for each faction.... If Rome curb-stopped a certain historical faction, do I want that faction to be 100% balanced against Rome in the game? Hell naw. Give them a challenge? Sure. The first conceit of the game is history. You want to present interesting historical challenges to the player, yes? Stop with this 0.48% increased attack balancing stuff and focus on making the game a compelling example of what you're trying to achieve first. Does that mean the alpha needs to be crazy imbalanced? Of course not, but detailed balancing should come in beta.

I wouldn't go that far, but yes. Overall there can be strong and weak phases of each civ in certain stages of the game. Else you can simply scrap 8 out of 10 civs and just change the paint. Just like in AoE II with full technology tree.

5 hours ago, Enrique said:

It has been said already on the thread. There's no tradeoff for making units that can fight and gather so there's little to none benefit on doing pure-economic units. In AOE2 defending villagers is ultra important on high level matches.

Exactly this.

4 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

The  problem with that is :to jump in the "soldier mode" when enemy are attacking you?

how many second you will lost?

must be a K-shortcut ?

there are many questions. So the the most fast player have a advantage?

 

---------

I do   many experiments in my map battle of dirt.

  • starting resources far.
  • slaves and women at the starting without CS's around.
  • no many resources, the poverty of a village.

 

The idea should be to make a rework of the town bell. Ring it, all Citizin run toward the Main hall and are equipped with swords and shields. Alternatively, you could create some sort of "armoury" building, or utilize the regular blacksmith building for that.

 

3 hours ago, Feldfeld said:

Yes, but rushing is also used very often. borg (the best player) often uses sword cav rush for exemple. In 1v1 and in team games, early cav rush is used, and not only that, but the roman spear cav rush is considered overpowered by many players. So from my experience in lobby, booming is not the one and only strategy, and in each game we play, we don't know for sure what will happen in early game.

Apart from that there is no point in discussing the "overpoweredness" of some horses in a game stage like this. But I'll try that myself when I should bother playing 0ad again. I'm pretty sure however, that there is no point in cavalry harassment early on if pretty much every civ has basic spearmen in their town hall as basic resource gatherers.

 

1 hour ago, shieldwolf23 said:

@DarcReaver - I totally understand your sentiments. There were times wherein if only I have the set of skills to make the changes myself, I would have done it quickly and presented it to the community. Like @Enrique said, your posts contain valid points of which we can learn. Will you be willing to be part of that process itself? We can have you in our team, if the Council will be okay with it. Can we do that @niektb? My only misgiving is to be patient with us - please do tone down the harshness level. We could definitely use your experience to the betterment of this game.

@Lion.Kanzen - I also appreciate the "loyalty" to 0 A.D. You have provided ideas and contributions to the group as well. Let us accept constructive criticisms whenever we get it.

I'm sorry about the harshness level, but after a certain point it simply gets frustrating to deal with the same type of arguments (or people) time and time again. It's exhausting. sometimes. @Lion.Kanzen I'll stop the argumentation before it devolves even more in a flame war, so leave it be aswell. It's better for both of us.

11 minutes ago, niektb said:

@shieldwolf23: Actually we already tried that with a Design Committee where f.e. @Karamel also participated in... Some results of that can be found in the Sybillae Vox gameplay mod, but likely it's not up to date anymore :(

I believe this also has/had to do with the lack of being able to actually change core mechanics of the game engine ourselves. Just fixing stats won't help the game itself. This experiment also clearly showed how hard it is to decide on design topics if there is noone in charge who actually knows "how" the direction of the game should be  heading. That's why it did not work out well.


@shieldwolf23 Sure, I'd be willing to participate in the process as long as I can see that there is something going on (in positive matter) and progress is made. there is no problem with waiting, as long as the waiting isn't pointless because nothing happens. (as I've already done in the past with @Karamel and @niektb. Also @wowgetoffyourcellphone has lots of creative ideas of how to make 0AD stand out of the masses.

Like I said, I already worked with volunteers myself, and I know the issues and risks that come with it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May I propose:

  • preparing a big meeting of dev team
    - dev team chooses an organizer for the meeting
    - dev invites some trusted community members to the party
       - each dev can invite one member
          - if one dev does not (want to) invite a member, another dev is allowed to invite an additional member
       - community members can ask to participate, but are not guaranteed to do so
    - organizer develops an agenda
       - invited members can make proposals
       - organizer summarizes the proposals
    - organizer publishes agenda
       - invited members think about the various points and send their feedback/answers to the organizer
       - organizer summarizes the feedback/answers in a way that they can be presented at the meeting
  • during the meeting
    - presentation of brainstorming part of summary by organizer
    - discussion
    - brainstorming (if not all questions have been answered yet)
       - what makes a good team?
          - which tasks must be worked on? which departments are needed? how many people do we need? what skills do people need to work on tasks / in department?
          - which roles must be filled? which hierarchical structure do we need? what traits do people need to fill the role?
       - what motivates people to work on the game?
       - what are the goals of the game?
          - what is the priority of these goals?
    - presentation of observation part of summary by organizer
    - discussion
    - observation (if not all questions have been answered yet)
       - looking separately at each team member
          - what does that member wants to work on?
          - what should (according to current official role) that member work on?
          - what is that member actually working on?
          - how is it working?
          - how often/long/much is it working?
          - what are strengths?
          - what are weaknesses?
       - what are players saying about the game?
          - new players? players that have witnessed several Alphas?
          - players with experience from other RTS games? players new to RTS games?
          - pro players? casual players?
          - singleplayers? multiplayers?
    - presentation of analysis part of summary by organizer
    - discussion
    - analysis (if not all question have been answered yet)
       - identify differences between reality and requirements
       - can we currently fill all roles/tasks/departments?
          - do we need to reassign people?
          - do we need to recruit new people?
          - do we have at least three members that are willing to regularly work on gameplay solutions?
             - if not, start a campaign looking for new team members
             - if yes, do we have a member that has great amount of experience with multiple successful RTS?
             - if yes, do we have a member that also has technical/programming skills?
             - if yes, do we have a member that can ...?
             - define exact tasks the three members will work on and compare if all can be mastered with the available skills
       - what can we learn from the players? (not: how do we defend our concept against them)
       - critically analyzing the own workflow
          - why did the Design Committee fail?
          - what were past milestones?
             - Did we achieve them?
             - Why/How (not)?
             - What could we do better?
       - gameplay
          - what is bad, what is good
          - what works together, what not
          - what seems to attract players, what not
  • after the meeting
    - ask new people and start a recruiting campaign
    - form a new department with at least three members, that
       - watch about 3 multiplayer games/week each
       - make notes about their observations
       - come together to compare their observations
       - identify fields of enhancement
       - think about possible solutions
       - formulate a conclusion
       - present that conclusion to the other devs and community
       - get feedback
       - pick the best solution
       - in cooperation with devs work on a monthly gameplay and balancing update
    - collect feedback
    - organize new meeting
    - ...

Schemes like this should provide a direction for discussion and workflow.
I'm pretty sure some of these things have been tried similarly in the past. And I'm aware that strictly following this scheme may overshoot. But it's not about strictly following this scheme, but making us think about our current workflow and develop solutions.

Such process, of course, requires to bear (constructive) criticism, but this should be a trait one could expect from a member participating in a team.

Conclusion:
- Get back on track!
- Ask: What can I learn? What can we learn? Learning is key to success!
- Get new members with willpower and vision into the boat. I would be glad, if @DarcReaver would join the party.

Edited by Palaxin
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I second the suggestion of @Palaxin. Maybe that is the way to go? However, if this is too formal/ too large for the community (to gather people and have a meeting of ideas), maybe we can start off with a mod, wherein we can have a properly documented design process, and maybe ask the developers later on to recognize the changes if it is really on par or beyond what the core game offers.

Of course, we need people, skilled ones who can really do the ground work. That I think is the challenge. All these ideas within the Forums are mostly with merit - if we can gather enough people to do something about it and make it organized, we can better move things forward.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DarcReaver said:
5 hours ago, Feldfeld said:

Yes, but rushing is also used very often. borg (the best player) often uses sword cav rush for exemple. In 1v1 and in team games, early cav rush is used, and not only that, but the roman spear cav rush is considered overpowered by many players. So from my experience in lobby, booming is not the one and only strategy, and in each game we play, we don't know for sure what will happen in early game.

Apart from that there is no point in discussing the "overpoweredness" of some horses in a game stage like this. But I'll try that myself when I should bother playing 0ad again. I'm pretty sure however, that there is no point in cavalry harassment early on if pretty much every civ has basic spearmen in their town hall as basic resource gatherers.

About cavalry harassment :

First of all, spearmen can kill cavalry, but only if the attacker isn't paying enough attention. By microing well, the player can keep his cav alive.

And yes, there is actually a point in cavalry harassment. If citizens soldiers that gather wood are massed enough, it is not worth it to  attack them with cav. But cavalry can still kill women gathering food. Cavalry can prevent food production and without food, you can't make soldiers/women anymore.

Also, to me, there is a point in discussing the "overpoweredness" of some horses in a game stage like this. You said earlier that booming is clearly the strategy to go. My example was about spear cav : I said it was overpowered, but actually it is only in raiding, in killing women, in preventing that food income. It loses actually if it fights at equal numbers against other types of cavalry. So assuming that following this strategy (spear cav rush) is overpowered : it makes that better than booming. It means that in a game between players of same strength, the player spear cav rushing will win more than the other one booming : can't we simply conclude that it IS possible to balance the game with that citizens soldiers system ? That it will really be possible to make this game unique with that ? The least we could say is that at this current stage, we can balance the game in a way that there is no obvious strategy to follow.

In this thread :

it seems that game is being close to beta and that balancing takes sense. I have no experience about game making, etc so i won't be sure about what i'm going to say. If we consider that the citizens soldiers system is a good aspect of this game, thus the only issue should be balancing. If the game can be balanced, then we can go on with citizens soldiers.

From what i have shown just before, assuming spear cav rush is overpowered, the game can in some way be balanced. So it is relevant to discuss about that (overpowered strats) in order to know if yes or no, the game can be balanced.

Not sure i explained well my point, i am now waiting for answers.

 

EDIT : I forgot to mention, but i can, if needed bring replays about successful cav rushes (that prevented food production, captured buildings to destroy it)

 

 

 

Edited by Feldfeld

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Feldfeld said:

it seems that game is being close to beta and that balancing takes sense. I have no experience about game making, etc so i won't be sure about what i'm going to say. If we consider that the citizens soldiers system is a good aspect of this game, thus the only issue should be balancing. If the game can be balanced, then we can go on with citizens soldiers.

From what i have shown just before, assuming spear cav rush is overpowered, the game can in some way be balanced. So it is relevant to discuss about that (overpowered strats) in order to know if yes or no, the game can be balanced.

Not sure i explained well my point, i am now waiting for answers.

 

EDIT : I forgot to mention, but i can, if needed bring replays about successful cav rushes (that prevented food production, captured buildings to destroy it)

Definately not. The bold part already shows that you have no experience about game making and thus your opinion is just that - an opinion from a rookie. Since you're civil and at least are trying to reason I'm not going to further argue with this and let it stand as it is.

Also, I'd like to not let this derail into a topic "which cav rush works better than that archer rush XXX strategy" thread because that kind of discussion is completely unproductive at this stage of the game and especially in this kind of thread. I sent you a more detailed answer on my views regarding this topic via PM. But I won't go into further detail because I'm tired discussing matters like this over and over.

Edited by DarcReaver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, DarcReaver said:

Also, I'd like to not let this derail into a topic "which cav rush works better than that archer rush XXX strategy" thread because that kind of discussion is completely unproductive at this stage of the game and especially in this kind of thread. I sent you a more detailed answer on my views regarding this topic via PM. But I won't go into further detail because I'm tired discussing matters like this over and over.

But did you read my answer ? 

1- You're actually the first who derailed completely the thread, you could make a new one to say there is no point in balance testing.

2- You first said that booming like a madman is the one and only strategy  and that it is because of this citizens system so we have to change it, changing the gameplay I answered to that by saying that it is possible to balance with the current gameplay, so it is supposed to refute your point. Still you completely avoid my point and say that it is off-topic. I'll need explanation on that.

 

So the conclusion of my point would be that the gameplay is good as it is. That's why i'm not answering off-topic.

Edited by Feldfeld

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even with the Citizen-Soldier system, I still separate my economy from my military to a certain extent. I use Female Citizens to gather food and wood, ideally totaling about 6 to 8 batches for farming since foraging is always exhausted quickly, which will probably change once the Corral trickle is implemented, and about 6 to 8 batches dedicated to woodcutting depending on how much wood is needed, and dedicated Citizen-Soldiers, that cost food and wood, in order to gather stone and metal, totaling 2 to 4 batches for each. I usually group my ranged infantry, melee infantry, ranged cavalry, and melee cavalry into separate groups for my army, and use the infantry for building structures for reaching new phases and houses until I reach the population cap. I actually don't use Champions very much, only if I feel I need to augment my Citizen-Soldiers with them, which is usually true for the Spartans and Mauryans.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Zeta1127 said:

Even with the Citizen-Soldier system, I still separate my economy from my military to a certain extent. I use Female Citizens to gather food and wood, ideally totaling about 6 to 8 batches for farming since foraging is always exhausted quickly, which will probably change once the Corral trickle is implemented, and about 6 to 8 batches dedicated to woodcutting depending on how much wood is needed, and dedicated Citizen-Soldiers, that cost food and wood, in order to gather stone and metal, totaling 2 to 4 batches for each. I usually group my ranged infantry, melee infantry, ranged cavalry, and melee cavalry into separate groups for my army, and use the infantry for building structures for reaching new phases and houses until I reach the population cap. I actually don't use Champions very much, only if I feel I need to augment my Citizen-Soldiers with them, which is usually true for the Spartans and Mauryans.

Yes and that's a problem.

As soon as player A stops foraging with his soldiers to attack start loosing resources because the soldiers are not collecting resources anymore.

Now the enemy player B still gathers with all his women + soldiers,

- attacking player A looses resources from not collecting (resources A)
- defending player B gets additional resources because his army is collecting (resources B).

So the total loss for the attacking player is resources A PLUS resources B

And on top of that if you don't have women in your base the whole economy is @#$%ed up and you have to reassign every unit once more to gather the required resources which is a tedious task in the lategame.

So stop arguing about that the Citizen Soldier system is a good concept just because you don't get te problems that result from the system because you are not directly affected.

Edited by DarcReaver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, DarcReaver said:

stop arguing about that the Citizen Soldier system is a good concept just because you don't get te problems that result from the system because you are not directly affected.

I'm sorry, no offence but I have to say that you have no clue of what are you talking about because i remind you of the loot system and the gain of killed unit resources.

I had your same thought about the fact that apprently being difensive could be an advantage but I had to change my mind since being offensive.

The game is about denying enemy economy and not cumuling resources like an ant, since resources can even get stockpiled with the result of 10k+ of food and wood in late game, sometimes even metal; I recall that not the best eco score player wins.

A system with citizen soldiers isn't that different from a ringing bell with villagers defending the city.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, loot system. Ofc you bring it up.

 Guess what you need to kill 50 women (!) to gain back enough resources to replace a single !!!! soldier in the current concept. Even if you put in 50% more loot you still need to kill multiple units to actually get something back in return. And even then I still loose resources for every second the army doesn't gather resources.

So in short, reasons to keep the army in the city and boom:

1) no risk of loosing soldiers
2) guaranteed income and not by chance of killing enemies
3) no need to reassign replaced soldiers in the base to resources
4) If I attack I risk roughly half or even 3/4 of my economic power (number of citizen soldiers) to actually attack an enemy who has just as many units and gets an advantage while I approach him.

Tell me again, why is this risk worth it if I can just build a wall up, start booming and then spam champions + siege weapons to take out the enemy city? Heck I can even train women from every house that the civs have. Depending on the game time that's up to 20 women every couple of seconds. And all those can harvest resources aswell.
Ever seen a 5 TC Boom in Age of Empires ? Compared to this it's a Kinder Party.

 

Edited by DarcReaver
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree overall with DarcReaver, except the tone...

In short, you're talking about cost of opportunities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...