Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 2017-03-01 in all areas

  1. After reading this discussion I feel compelled to give my honest opinion on this topic, too. I can at least partly understand @DarcReaver and others getting in rage mode after trying to provide valuable input for the dev team regarding gameplay enhancements, only to get no to insignificant feedback and/or to observe the game heading towards a foreseeable future that is so wayyyyy below the true potential of the game. The usual answer - "we are all volunteers and if you want to change something then work on it" - does not address the problem properly since (at least from my experience and my observations) you will only waste lots of time trying to implement bigger changes, e.g. by means of a mod. AFAIK @wowgetoffyourcellphone has spent countless hours for the DE mod with tons of new features, techs, ... - and got some icons committed so far (correct me if I'm wrong). @wraitii has proposed a new market mechanism long time ago, received predominantly good feedback, provided a patch, ... And 15 months later no one remembers about it. 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. We first of all lack a leader with the big picture in mind, a vision, a plan to follow, and who can take quick decisions or at least quickly comes to an agreement with some core devs. This is just my observation and no personal critique - @Itms is certainly a valuable dev, but I only associate programming issues with his name. As @DarcReaver said, we need a clear, recognizable gameplay concept that allows and forces a player to choose between a large variety of different strategies. Factions need to have stronger gameplay characteristics. A basic ruleset for military strengths, weaknesses and counters. A basic ruleset is such a necessary thing. It's defining the game like a constitution is defining a state. If we don't address these things the game will remain more a historic accurate simulation but will not be playable for long, at least not for a great majority of players. And a big number of players will help us all, since it will attract more devs/contributors addressing our lack of manpower. Similar to @DarcReaver suggestions, here are some sample rules that could be combined to a ruleset: RULE: The higher the value of a unit/building/tech, the higher its cost. (currently this is not true for population) example: Civilians require 1 pop, infantry units require 2 pop, cavalry units require 3 pop, elephants require 4 pop, heros require 5 pop, ... RULE: The higher the value/complexity of a unit/building/tech, the more diverse its cost. example 1: basic units cost 1 resource (food), citizen soldiers 2 resources (food and wood/metal), champions 3 resources (food, wood and metal), ... example 2: village phase techs usually 1 resource, town phase techs usually 2 resources, city phase techs usually 3 resources, ... RULE: The higher the value of a unit/building/tech, the more rare the needed resources are ... RULE: There are three classes of buildings/units/strategies/factions. Each class is strong against another class and weak against yet another class. Alternatively: There are five classes of buildings/units. Each class is strong against two other classes and weak against two further classes. Or each class is strong against another class, weak against yet another class and about as strong as two further classes. example 1: (melee) cavalry beats ranged (cavalry/infantry), ranged (cavalry/infantry) beats (melee) infantry, (melee) infantry beats (melee) cavalry example 2: buildings beat soldiers, soldiers beat siege, siege beats buildings example 3: booming beats turtling, turtling beats rushing, rushing beats booming example 4: swordman beats pikeman (1v1), pikeman beats spearman (formation), spearman beats swordman (formation). pikeman beats swordman (formation), swordman beats spearman (1v1), spearman beats pikeman (1v1). RULE: The stronger a faction can potentially be (in terms of tech upgrades, units, bonuses, ...), the slower its development example: early game faction, mid game faction, late game faction These are illustrative examples that could help to achieve a red line in gameplay. But it is important to formulate such rules, make tickets for their implementation, etc.
    6 points
  2. Unlike Lionkazen and sphyrt I understand DarcReaver and share some of his thoughts regarding the core gameplay even if his words aren't as polite as we're used to. There are some reasons that made the gameplay direction to the current state it is, but it is not a valid argument to defend the current gameplay at all. I think experimenting with more radical gameplay changes, even if imbalanced, would be a better way to find the correct gameplay systems' mix to get a fun game instead of trying to balance the alpha to make it enjoyable for its current playerbase. Sadly, we don't have a lead gameplay tech/dev and normally each member has its own game view.
    6 points
  3. I'll just talk about resources and gathering first. I think citizen-soldiers can remain, but like darc say it's broken right now. Restricts a lot of strategies. I think it can be fixed with battalions, and when you task them to gather something they change from soldiers to citizens, which are vulnerable. They do not automatically switch back to soldier when they are attacked or raided, they either have to be done manually per battalion or a call-to-arms button use -- both options available. Point is, when in citizen-gatherer mode, they are as vulnerable like "villagers" from aoe. It take vigilance and speed to switch them back to soldier mode and fight back effectively. This works great with a battalion system. A lot harder without battalions. There can even be a "muster" time, it takes some seconds for the men to re-don their panoplies and fight back, but during that time they are vulnerable like villagers, though they can still fight back -- would be awesome to see them fighting back with axes and picks and hoes until their muster time completes. 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. I 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. Stone is mined from large "Quarries" -- about the size of a Civic Center These look like open quarris on the side of a mountain. Imagine a large marble quarry. Two slots for storehouse, allows to share. No strict ownership, unlike metal Mine Shafts. Units are easily raided while mining the quarry since they chisel the stone out in the open. If storehouse destroyed, miners don't die, they just can't quarry anymore. There can still be small metal and stone mine like there is now in the starting territory of the player, but these are limited, maybe just 1 of each, and farther away from the CC than they are now. To really gather a good amount of metal and stone you have to go scout and find these rich resources, the Stone Quarry and Metal Mine Shaft. These are large, strategically important. Another aspect of the Stone Quarry and Metal Mine Shaft is that you do not have to own the territory to place your storehouse and claim them. So, you may take the risk of gathering far from your defenses and reinforcements. That's all I can think of right now for resources.
    3 points
  4. 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.
    2 points
  5. 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. Exactly this. 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. 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. 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. 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.
    2 points
  6. Very good post Palaxin, this sums up my view on this matter pretty well. to give one more example to the design process: It's painful, as there has to be decided which stuff is kept and which stuff is forfeit, resulting in work of people to be repelled and pissing them off. But that's the cost of real progress. It's like not going to the dentist: You avoid doing it because the doctor could notice that something is wrong with your teeth. So you avoid fixing the teeth by not knowing about it. But that's not the correct approach unfortunately. The teeth still have problems, and thus you'll get ill someday.
    2 points
  7. Look, i'm not the right person to talk about your disregards about the game, as i'm not entirely familiarized with all the game developement. But there is something i can say to you: First, check this magnificent and beautiful post You may think: Why the f|@·~ i want to see that? Well, the way how Sundiata exposed his idea about a faction, led that single idea into a mod. I know its not the same as gameplay, but i think my point is very clear. Instead of letting loose your rage, why don't you come up with a decent post, explaining your ideas, giving pros, contras, comparing x with y or whatever you think it may be useful for you to explain it. Testing is needed as devs can't go blindly writing code, they got to know what people think that should be done and should be corrected, they need to know another point of view. But there are ways to get to them, one way, is giving a nice explanation, not mere millions of words, just a good explained idea. So, you think that writing while on rage on the forum it will make them say: Yes, change it!! or you think they will take your words seriously? No, seriously, no. I think some of your protests can be seen here http://trac.wildfiregames.com/roadmap or searching in the forum you may know what has been said about it. I urge to try another efficient way to expose your ideas. Avoid writing that with rage, be polite.
    2 points
  8. Originally posted in the wrong thread (Suggestions for 0 A.D.): r 0
    2 points
  9. Either the game, or the manual should adjust accordingly. Posting this one as a whole since it also shows the brokenness of the Structure Tree for my 1024x768 screen.
    1 point
  10. 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.
    1 point
  11. 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.
    1 point
  12. 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.
    1 point
  13. @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.
    1 point
  14. 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.
    1 point
  15. 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.
    1 point
  16. 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.
    1 point
  17. The faster player always has advantage, Lion. But like I said, they can still fight back, but with their pitchforks and shovels and stuff until they are mustered.
    1 point
  18. 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.
    1 point
  19. Stuff like this needs to be the core of the actual game first. The developers have to have a vision of the game, how it should be played and build it accordingly. Leaving everything to modders or total conversions does not help. Of course opinions differ, but if someone of the dev team would set up a line for the gameplay there would be no reason to create mods to fix the game for them. I don't even care if its a system similar to mine, but it should _WORK_. And in the current alpha it's more than obvious that the dev game version does NOT work. And the worst thing: I came here over a year ago (!) and there has been ZERO, ZERO !!! progress in the game design department. It's almost the same when I left at alpha 18 or 19. that's the real problem. They don't care. They even created a "balancing" sub forum that states "Hey look our game is awesome that we don't need to improve the game design. Just help us fix the stats and it's awesome!" which is utterly bulls***. There is so much great art and potential in this game and they're not even remotely using it to make something great out of it. Of course it's a difference if you're an Indie developer compared to the great lords of games like microsoft or Blizzard. But that's no excuse to get your own stuff to work properly. Hence my rambling.
    1 point
  20. Woah! With those concepts you're better off having a team to build a mod for the game... a total conversion even.
    1 point
  21. @sphyrth This guys is the kind is capricious, the citizen soldiers can work, I don't see where is broken for an experienced player. he statement this because like nostalgia and stay in a safe place his confort zone. - I think the same about Citizen soldiers but, later I understand how can deal with them and how using them.
    1 point
  22. You can made propositions, you know? Why, you need explain a lot this and how can be changed. Not only say "is bad because I don't like" or "you must fix that, try to imagine how, but you need fix that"
    1 point
  23. And that's the main reason 0 A.D. is unique from all of them. Because I'll be gaining 1 Food, 1 Wood, 1 Stone, and 1 Metal. For each woman I kill... things that I don't usually get especially in the Village Phase. Not to mention exp points for my soldiers. For gameplay reasons. But how about Marius' Mules? Like I said, there are Champion units in the City Phase for that. Not all units are Citizen Soldiers. I don't actually have a problem learning to play with it. I'm actually considering the fact that AoE 2 wasn't my childhood and I have to learn the game from scratch. You have a standard way of playing RTS and you want that imported here as well. This I believe is more of a battle of preference than actual standard of what makes RTS good or not.
    1 point
  24. Specific constructive suggestions? Well how about this: edit: step 0: get rid of that citizen soldier concept, then start from scratch and use the art assets you already have available Step 1: create a resource concept Step 2: create faction concept(s) - create original factions that actually represent the characteristics of the civilizations ingame Step 3: create a teching concept - where and how many buildings should be available at which state of the game step 3a: economic systems step 3b: military systems step 3c: defensive tech systems Step 4: create a counter system - units that are trainable at which state of the game, how many units, unit characteristics etc. Step 5: create a gameplay pattern that the game follows to actually have some sort of game progress Step 5a: gameplay patterns of economy Step 5b: gameplay patterns of structures Step 5c: gameplay patterns of military . . . Step 10.000: balance playtesting of the final game (for which this forum is for) Those 5 things would at least create a state in which you can go more into detail. At this point I'd have to create a design guide for the game, consisting of everything, and would be probably a couple dozen pages long. This should have been done by the team years ago already and programming should have followed it (and by "design guide" I mean a detailed document that is actually worth a darn and not made by a bunch of noobs who don't know anything about actual gameplay), and I can't be bothered to write a design guide for you because you won't listen anyways. I know that there already is some of that present in the game, it's just that the implementation is nowhere near in a state that allows to actually create a gameplay. Also, follow Niektb's suggestion and as a first step read through my posts.
    1 point
  25. 0 AD is based propio of these techniques, the game itself has the ability to do things that others can not do, it is still a strategic and it is true, but it uses the strategy in a way different from what we would do another rts, as you say it is strange that there are soldiers linked to the economy, but this is the basis of 0 AD remove it would be to destroy a building that is already in the process of harness and rebuild it from scratch, we ever wonder why we talk always art? Why have the fundamental component of the game is created, the ability to do things that you have listed are the basis of 0AD not to be found in another RTS, but I'm just repeating what I have already said before, change the foundation would be a new beginning and I do not understand why if you already this principle has already been built a long time. Propio this point it apart from AOE II, otherwise the game would concepts too similar, these changes have been made to create a game SIMILAR TO AGE OF EMPIRE II, these concepts may also not like the game but they are propio these to make an independent game 0 AD to AOE II, with its techniques, and independent, and I find that to awaken the public interest, there must be something innovative, not the same rules of the same RTS, we are no longer in the era of the golden age of empires, we will be among some in the golden age of 0AD.
    1 point
  26. No point in balance testing. The "game" mainly consists of booming like a madman and then spamming units. the units themselves are not visibly different from each other, which makes microing units even worse. It's almost impossible to assign units against their intended counters (another reason to actually use my proposed system of unit battalions instead of single units/formations. It's like microing each soldier individually in Rome Total War ) Furthermore, there is no red line in the factions, thus it's chaotic. On top of that there still is no resource dependency of units. All units cost food, lumber and some cost another additional resource. There is still no idea behind the resources used ingame. I propose you actually create a gameplay to get something that is worth called "balance". There cannot be a balancing process in this stage of the game. I'll go ahead and post a faction concept usable for multiple factions and different types to factions to actually get something that could be used. Right now it's just a mess. Sorry to say that, but it's true.
    1 point
  27. In the most recent update of https://code.wildfiregames.com/D156: Add minimum distance 15 between wolf spawn points, so that two spawn points can't end up right besides each other, making it unfair for one player. With a chance of 1/3, use exactly niektb's environment settings (besides a random sun angle and a random sun elevation that casts a significant shadow) suggested in https://wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?/topic/21519-new-maps-for-a22/#comment-327610 With a chance of 2/3 use a more randomized daylight environment setting (with a sun elevation that casts a significant shadow, but not as deep as we expect it on a sunrise/sunset time) Use niektb's screenshot from the forum thread as a map preview Deal?
    1 point
  28. I'm sorry I have to post criticism, but well. Here we go: How about you create a gameplay concept before calling people to test it? I just downloaded the newest alpha, and gameplay wise there is almost zero progress. Yes, I've noticed there is more content in the game, the game runs smoother compared to before and animations etc. work better now. But this kind of progress doesn't change the fact that It's still an AoE II clone with too much micromanagement on the wrong stuff. Sure, you can capture stuff now, and that's better than I've initially expected it, but that doesn't change the fact that there are inherent flaws in the core gameplay that NEED to be adressed. Those are : - Citizen Soldier system - too much focus on booming - all units available from the start - unflexible teching - economy management -> army transition feels weird (indirectly connected to Citizen Soldiers) - no "red line" in the game which created tactical/strategical depth (indirectly connected to unflexible teching and Citizen Soldiers) These points have been brought up numerous times in the past, yet still there's nothing done about it at all. I really hope someone wakes up and actually takes on the problems the the game mechanics, because art and content are not the major part of why strategy games are played.
    1 point
  29. Just setting isCircular = true works on first sight, but would remove a lot of fun on most of those new maps, as 3 of 4 corners of the most maps add to the experience, while 1 of those 4 corners adds space that worsens the experience. Don't think it's thad bad. The Howe Sound name has to be changed urgently though.
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...