Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 2017-04-11 in all areas

  1. Hi guys!!! I come here to discuss a change in the interface of the units / constructions. It's something that has bothered me a lot, for several reasons. You need to leave your mouse over icon for some time, until important information is shown, and even then they are confusing, have poor allocation, letters are small and not have icons. It sounds like something unimportant but it is not, in some other rts games, when you evolve your drives, the drive model also changes, so you know that drive is upgraded, and you take care of it. At 0 A.D this does not happen, so you can not tell if the drives are upgraded, you need to click them, leave the mouse on the icon for some time, and then you can see a lot of confusing information. What I would like to see is something like this: It's something simple and clean, just with a few icons, showing, atack/armors/atackrang. Of course a few more things can be added, and also, the other information does not have to be taken, they can stay where they are. This way it is much easier to see and you do not waste time looking for the information you need. I have seen some players complaining about losing fights and only then did they see that the enemy units were much stronger. And I dare you to say, that some players do not know that this information exists, because they have never tried to leave the mouse over the icon. Age of empires 2 is just one of the good examples we have, it does not have to be identical. What do you guys think? He gave his opinions and suggestions. Tnx
    3 points
  2. ...I don't know where to start. I heard about this game on the internet and I had mixed feelings about it thinking that is open source and the installer is below 1GB. I started to play and I felt my heart warming with love, I couldn't believe what I was seeing. Dynamic range on archers, different types of armor, the graphic that is similar to AoM which I very like. I still cannot believe that this is real. Dear Devs and staff: THANK YOU FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE HEART FOR THE EFFORT THAT YOU PUT IN THIS GAME. The only regret that I have is that I am poor and because of that my donation will be very limited and small amounts.
    3 points
  3. I prefer that format the Loot has employed (Following from that Bamboo Spearman Example): Attack: (Hack Icon) 3, (Pierce Icon) 2.5, (Rate Icon) 1 Defense: (Hack Icon) 5, (Pierce Icon) 5, (Crush Icon) 15 Capture: (I don't know what to do with this part) Speed: (Walk Icon) 8.5, (Run Icon) 15 Loot: (Experience Icon) 100, (Food Icon) 5, (Wood Icon) 5
    3 points
  4. Ok just wanted to make sure I think your problem is that the height map is 16-bit and the usual image is 8-bit only.
    2 points
  5. Welcome to the forums i33SoDA No regrets necessary, we do this for free because we love it. Don't feel obliged to donate anything
    2 points
  6. I don't know if you noticed, but there are a lot more numbers in our screenshot ... Our attack/defense model is just a lot more complicated with a lot more different parameters, and players need to know that. It might be good to enlarge the area though, so there's no line wrapping
    2 points
  7. As a final note, to this long series of visual posts, I present a new list of sources and further reading directly related to the Kingdom of Kush, for those who wish to have more in-depth knowledge of ancient Kush (previous lists of sources can be found here, at the end of this post and at the end of this post). I based virtually all my writing on these sources, and each of the listed sites are interesting in their own right, worth a browse. I thank everybody that has been through this thread so far, and supported our research and ideas. I will now be focussing more on dedicated art, illustrating Kushite units. Any questions and remarks are welcome. - Boat Building in the Sudan: Material culture and its contribution to the understanding of Sudanese cultural morphology, by Yousif Hassan Madani - Musawwarat es-Sufra: Interpreting the Great Enclosure by S. Wenig –Sudan & Nubia, No 5, published by The Sudan Research and Archaeological Society, 2001 https://issuu.com/sudarchrs/docs/s_n05-wenig/13 - Rediscovery of the Kushite site - Naga, 15 years of excavation (1995-2010). Surprises and Innovation by K. Kroeper — Sudan & Nubia, No 15, published by The Sudan Archaeological Research Society, 2011 https://issuu.com/sudarchrs/docs/s_n15_kroeper - The Royal Pyramids of Meroe. Architecture, Construction and Reconstruction of a Sacred Landscape by F.W. Hinkel — Sudan & Nubia, No 4, published by The Sudan Archaeological Research Society, 2000 https://issuu.com/sudarchrs/docs/s_n04-hinkel - http://www.musawwarat.com - http://www.zamaniproject.org/index.php/musawwarat.html - http://what-when-how.com/archaeology-of-ancient-egypt/meroitic-culture-to-metallurgy-archaeology-of-ancient-egypt/ - http://what-when-how.com/archaeology-of-ancient-egypt/meroe-city-to-meroe-the-sun-temple-archaeology-of-ancient-egypt/ - http://nubie-international.fr/accueil.php?a=page145000 - http://whc.unesco.org/uploads/nominations/1336.pdf - http://chs.harvard.edu/CHS/article/display/1301 - https://www.slideshare.net/jehuti/ancient-african-kingdom-of-kush - http://egypte-eternelle.org/index.php/nubie/haute-nubie/meroe - https://garstangmuseum.wordpress.com/2015/03/26/rome-through-the-eyes-of-meroe-an-enemy-trampled-underfoot/ - https://garstangmuseum.wordpress.com/2014/02/10/object-in-focus-a-meroitic-lion-statuette-e-8003/ - https://archaeologistsdiary.wordpress.com/2015/10/30/treasure-of-amanishakheto/ - http://web.archive.org/web/20070913062518/http://arkamani.org/arkamani-library/library-contents.htm#Meroitic Kingdom - http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft0000035f&chunk.id=ch2&toc.id=ch2&brand=ucpress - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_monarchs_of_Kush
    1 point
  8. I really enjoyed BFME but i never liked the autorefilling battalion system. Imo allowing a player to merge different battalions would have been much better, this never happened obviously because of the battallion Rank system. Anyway in BFME units die like fly there and a continuos refill of your lanes is needed and battalions are convenient, and as far as i recall this isn't in 0AD current design nor in the design you proposed (i recall you proposed to increase the battles duration). Making selection groups let you to micromanage different units. As you said, it is a feature of the game; matter of fact i can select more buildings or soldiers using SPACE + 1-9 (alt + 1-9 by default) and eventually click ont the icon of the type of units i want to micromanage in the middle panel. f.e In the screenshot you posted, you can simply click on the slingers icon displayed on the middle panel to move all the slingers of the previous selection. None forces you to look for your units in the battle mess and double click them in order to give an order. This is one of my fav rts: this is not purely combat oriented but you can notice how the units are managed. the units are trained one by one and automatically merged into a big battalion, btw having pure control on them by reducing or increasing the battalion size (there isn't a drag and drop selection area). The difference is on the versatility of disrupting and reforming battalions, even of different size and, in the case of 0AD the formation adopted and the type of soldiers within it. The main differences are: 1) if you notice, skirmishers always get a half moon shape deployment when they attack because their range is very limited. The effect is reduced as the attack range increases, still avoids idle units in the backlines. 2) a single formation can be disrupted, resized and modified with different units. You could simply select a type of soldier, put them in a different formation shape and bind any battalion to a different hotkey 3) the micromanage you fear, which is even unnecessary as i already showed you by using selection groups, would just replaced by a PLACEMENT micromanagement, basically you have to give different rally points to any battallion which would be unnecessary if ranged and melee units could simply be part of the same battallion. Using a metaphore, Ubuntu and Macos have totally different philosophies. While the first has an open source philosophy, the latter is an extremely closed system despite they both are based on a UNIX system. I can't have Ubuntu and pretend to have a Macos despite they are both based on the same system. A simple introduction of a "lock formation" button is the nearest form of battalion you could obtain without going to drastically change the whole concept. Improve instead of rewrite something that won't have substancial differences but different philosophies.
    1 point
  9. @shieldwolf23: the water height is a setting in Atlas, so you can raise it or lower it.
    1 point
  10. @FeXoR - I followed the guide (beginner level) to the letter, and here's my result. You can see that the water level is shallow. Here's what I did, using Brightness contrast output levels - 5 All Channels - 100 then, gaussian blur - 4 The water would still be in the same level, but land would be higher. I can now edit the water level via Notepad++, and use 80 to finalize it.
    1 point
  11. I checked them, i forgot to use the height range with color contrast
    1 point
  12. Nice Alexis I'm a single player gamer and very satisfied with the current Alpha21 regardless of some bugs. Been playing a protracted game and trying to extract the best possible enjoyment of it.
    1 point
  13. The Kingdom of Kush in popular culture Here I will share a collection of images of Kushites created by various artists around the world. I focused only on those images that showcase relatively credible dress and attire and can be used as inspiration for other works and unit models. Images of Pharaoh Taharqa at the zenith of the 25th dynasty: One remark on this image is that the crown Taharqa is wearing actually dates to the Post Meroitic era. Apart from that, this image is an excellent collage of Napatan Kush. Portrait of queen Takahatenamun, wife of the 25th dynasty Pharaoh Taharqa by leviathaninutero Queen Amun-dyek-het high priestesss of Hathor (and possible wife of Taharqa) bows before her captor, King Esarhaddon of Assyria Queen Amanirenas Queen Amanirenas, "Will you fight for me again?" by aliciane 25th dynasty pharaoh, Piye, also known as Piankhi in front of the Amun temple at Napata. Ancient Kush Kushite queen Female archer from Kush Kushite Noble Spearman Kushite debutante by dabrandonsphere Ancient Nubians trading with Egyptians A royal scene
    1 point
  14. Has he any connected audio device (headphones, loudspeakers)?
    1 point
  15. Sword units. Sword units are strong against Siege Weapons. You might be surprised but even Women can take them down.
    1 point
  16. What should be seen in the attack part? We have hack, pierce and crush. Same goes for armour. I noticed you don't list the capture attack, do you want it to be removed? The loot also shouldn't? be listed? I think there is in particular a problem with the portuguese appearance, because the attack-speed is on a separate line, but in the english version it's on the same line. It is correct that having icons would make the text shorter and thus quicker to read. Existing icons are found in binaries/data/mods/public/art/textures/ui/session/icons/ if you have some ideas which should be used. Probably don't have the right size.
    1 point
  17. Más amor para las vacas merecen todo jajajaja vacuna=vaccine Vacuna=bovine literal transactions Spanish
    1 point
  18. Not that I think that Vacuna is necessarily a perfect choice anyway, but I really don't see why vaccine and "related to cows" would be arguments against using a name =) What's wrong with cows?
    1 point
  19. That's a matter of perspective, which is why there is a lot of discussions about the design. Pd: BFME2 it's not dead. Well, at least not at all and this mod http://www.moddb.com/mods/edain-mod probes it
    1 point
  20. 1 point
  21. We love the series of AoE , the started people dream with an open Age of empires, with innnvoations and more historical accurate.
    1 point
  22. Rise and fall CaW. was the unique to have individual mix with battalions . For me that most interesting.
    1 point
  23. Amphibian Hoplite - Attack Synchronization
    1 point
  24. Anavultus - Disjunction I also have the same problem on how "Grugnas" should be pronounced.
    1 point
  25. Thanks for uploading the replay Boudica! The segfault can be reproduced via visual or nonvisual replay. The error stack sounds very brutal, probably some garbage collection issue or something #4523. Marked it as a release blocker, but I'm not sure if we find out what's happening there.
    1 point
  26. 1 point
  27. Interesting I'm researching the Xiongnu the Han steppe nomad rivals and most of the uniforms are similar. More fur on the nomads. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xiongnu Lots of hero names on that wikipedia page and the silk road wikipedia page. The Han were bottled up in whats roughly one quarter of modern China by the Xiongnu.
    1 point
  28. Have you guys thought of including the mayas to your mod, at some point? Just sayin' it could be good for zapotecs to have some local friends to play with Here are some maya monuments in 3d reconstruction:
    1 point
  29. A @Enrique I will be able to tone it down a bit tonight. I will upload it later with a link for you to hear the revision. Then when we approve that, I'll send the download links that way you guys can use them in your videos for the trailers and other things. I agree to the Licensing I was just unaware that the game would fall under Creative Commons.
    1 point
  30. Copyright and licensing should practically be the same between art and sound, the usage of the game art is subject to a license as well. And as part of that license it's stated that people can re-use the data for the game (whether art or sound or text, etc) for other projects, provided that they too follow the license which among other things says that things created with the 0 A.D. data must be released under the same license, and that credit must be given. People are however allowed to use it in other projects, whether they are commercial or free. Please see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ for more detailed information, as well as links to the more carefully worded actual license. If you are not prepared to create sounds and release them under this license, then your sounds are of no use to the project. Your advice/opinion can however still be useful, so don't see this as discouragement of your involvement even if you don't want to release sounds under this license All help is useful
    1 point
  31. To reduce late game lag, I want to recommend a few changes to AI and suggest a different variety of displayed hotkeys, including a strategic interface for controls. One of the main problems I perceive is that units automatically form up once selected, and don't automatically engage enemy troops. This allows you to take advantage of the computer and cut off their army while they are on the way. I think that units should only move into formation if you order them to and they should automatically engage enemy units at will while in formation; This will encourage players to move their offensive armies into formation, and requires little background processing compared to some other AI functions that have yet to be implemented. Next up I wanted to cover formations; Remove all the useless ones, there really only needs to be one formation (box/line) and any units that have special formations like shield wall or phalanx. Maybe cavalry can get their own charge formation. Archers aren't shooting in volleys so anything like scatter of wedge is useless, its hit or miss; Line always works best. Everything else is for show, maybe put them on there for players to have fun, but not for computers to cause lag. Finally the economy in this game... I realize your trying to copy some cool styles and like it, but focusing the resources around 8-16 focused areas and making battlefields inbetween might stop these computers from spreading out endlessly. Naval AI should only apply to game maps where you need to cross water to attack. Stop making weird cliffs, because its causing pathing errors, try to make the edges more clearly defined. I hate it when they walk around the edge of the wall. The big problem though is trying to move across your own buildings. If we could move right through nonwall allied buildings I think it will save the game from a lot of late game lag. Just make a necessary gap between nonfarm/nonwall buildings.
    1 point
  32. I like strategic thinking. I typically play at 0.1x.
    1 point
  33. I send my starting cavalry out to scout / hunt, put 1 or 2 women on butchering chickens. I don't think the chickens are a big enough food source to tie up my cavalry on, I think scouting is too important to delay. I build a barracks just before I upgrade to age II, so it can be producing units while my CC is tied up with the upgrade.
    1 point
  34. To be honest I often choose one of the slowest game speeds. I play the game more for optimizations (e.g. winning without losing a single unit) than just for fun and I'm really bad at multitasking. This is also the reason why I don't really play multiplayer (observing is interesting though). It's like a kind of chess where more time to think and react leads to less errors. 0.1x for pure optimization (and unit microing during a huge battle) 0.25x when building up economy 0.5x for late game when everything is set up and no huge threats can be expected 0.75x feels like the most realistic game speed to me
    1 point
  35. I suggest two new improvements, to the future of the game.. - Scenary climate: Day & night emulation, Cool and hot emulation - Food & water necessary to troops and workers. Thanks a lot Best regards
    1 point
  36. Of all the proposals in this thread, the one that strikes me as having the most potential is upgrading individual buildings, and making the upgrades of the civ center very significant, so that they have the feel of advancing to a new phase/age. One of the main reasons I like this proposal is that it increases strategic diversity. For the game to be strategically interesting, there should never be just one right answer. So we should not think of building upgrades as "leveling up" but rather as choosing a direction for research/development. This would provide for a kind of tech tree for buildings. Some examples to illustrate the possibilities: Civ center starts as "village center" and can be upgraded to "town center", then "city center". Barracks start as generic "barracks" which can train basic but poor units (spearman, archer, mounted scout), but once the player has at least one "town center", they can upgrade the "barracks" to either an "infantry barracks" or "archery barracks" or "cavalry barracks", each of which can only produce it's particular style of units, but the units are much better quality than units created at a generic "barracks". This is the generalist -> specialist progression. The player of course has the option to not upgrade a barracks, so as to retain the diversity of the original building, but will have to make do with poor units. Or he can upgrade all his barracks to infantry barracks if he wants to do an infantry-heavy strategy, or he can build several barracks and upgrade some to infantry barracks, some to archery barracks, some to cavalry barracks for a combined-arms approach. "Farmstead" can be a generalist structure that can serve as dropsite for hunting or gathering (but not farming), but once a player has a "town center", the farmstead can also be upgraded to either a "mill", which can only receive berries and farming, or a "corral", which can produce herds and receive meat of any kind. If the player wants both, they will need to make more than one farmstead and upgrade them individually to different things. Historically, the market can be thought of a crossroads where both goods and ideas are traded. "Marketplace" can only be built once a player has a "town center" and can do basic goods trading (as currently implemented). But once a player has at least one "city center", the "marketplace" can be upgraded to either an "emporium" (trade center which specializes economically, giving better exchange rates, available techs for traders, etc.) or to a "debate school" (which specializes in academic knowledge, giving research bonuses across the board, allowing cross-cultural advancements like the Carthaginian embassies, etc.). Building tech tree options can be mutually dependent. For example, the basic generalist "blacksmith" (which can do a little of everything) can be upgraded to a "forge workshop" (which allows even better armor, etc), but only if a player also has an upgraded barracks. If they only have an infantry barracks, the forge workshop will only be able to do infantry upgrades. If they also have an archery barracks, the forge workshop will also be able to do archer upgrades, etc. Or instead of upgrading to a forge workshop, the player can choose to upgrade the "blacksmith" to a "siege workshop" (which can build/upgrade siege weapons), but only if they have at least one "debate school" (the idea being that academic knowledge allows for the math and science knowledge necessary for building siege weapons). The phase/age idea can also be diversified by forking the upgrade tree of the civ center. For example, the "town center" can be upgraded to either a "city center" (which focuses economically and academically, allowing buildings like the debate school and giving increased productivity to villagers working within its radius of influence) or to a "citadel" (which focuses militarily, giving defensive bonuses to nearby villagers and soldiers, but not unlocking key economic/academic techs and buildings). Again, this would provide strategic choices for the player. They can go all military (but their military won't have great diversity and sophistication) or all economic (but with some military disadvantage), or probably develop one town center into a city center and develop forward town centers into citadels, thus benefiting from both sides of the tech tree but at increased cost in time and resources. Obviously all these ideas are just brainstorms and the names and details need great refinement. But the examples illustrate the diversity and interest-factor that could be added to the game. It also opens the door for a more interesting economy side to the game, which several people have noted is a bit lacking. Is this idea worth pursuing? If so, I might work on a basic tech tree proposal. Feedback?
    1 point
  37. If the Village Phase is boring it doesn't mean that you need to abolish it. Why not make it more interesting? => Reduce LOS, make Hunting more viable (by somehow reducing the impact of the distance to the dropsite -> increase carry capacity just for hunting or something). Maybe even something in terms of a Player vs. Environment... I think that is much more fun than removing phases. If we remove every gameplay feature that's not perfect, we would be left with a bare-stripped game that's not fun to play at all. Better improve those features instead.
    1 point
  38. Yes this is what I like about upgrading buildings: you don't have to. You can take risks. Say the first level CC is very weak: you may not upgrade it if you're just interested in making women and not techs or whatever, but if you get attacked early on you won't be able to defend. Or you can make it into a quasi-fortress if you pour enough resources in. I don't really think it'd be that much micro-management, and we don't have to make all buildings upgradable. I'm inspired for this by Tower Defense games, which I think have quite a few interesting characteristics, and also city-builders: I think 0 A.D. should be a little more about city-building. I do agree with you guys that if we keep phases, we need to separate them more and make them more interesting. There are a variety of ways of doing this, but they all end up running in a problem imo: we don't have that big of a unit roster. Most civs have between 5 and 7 different units. And start with 3 from the CC straight up. An issue with making village phase all about economy is that it's really really boring. Hunting doesn't work. Scouting is pretty darn easy with the huge LOS that units have and the territory mechanics. There's just not that much to do. The economic side of 0 A.D. just isn't that interesting, and to this day I regret that the original design wasn't waaay fancier economically. I remain unconvinced by phases. I believe they make sense in the context of games such as Rise of Nations. They had their place in Age of Empires since units really progressed (BTW this is also why AOE 3 phases felt weird to me: you didn't feel like you were advancing in ages). In 0 A.D.? I just don't think so. I kinda like the idea of allowing more specialization in gathering. It makes sense and it would give something to do beyond the early phases for economy. But we need to rethink a lot of the game for that.
    1 point
  39. About the ficitional stuff. I overly exaggerated it to try to make a point. I'm okay with fiction as long as I don't get the wrong idea when playing a map that I thought would be authentic. I don't like the idea of amazing historical accurate civilisations on a map that's the opposite. I'm not going to stop the developers from making fiction, like the special dragon map. But yeah I might very well complain when something fictional is done in favour of something authentic that is important. Good that you wrote down the list, so we can discuss this futher.
    1 point
  40. I agree with you fully. These type of things would be the best for DLCs. I think focussing on the main "stuff" is more than enough work for you and the other team members. I'm not sure if I agree on the special feature though. I'll get back to that later. Good advice, I appreciate it. And I will start thinking about it. Though it is quite challenging for me to think about it. I would like it to be interesting, refreshing and have depth. I look at it like this: 1. Easy to implement, but less authentic and limited in depth. (You can choose to gain resources, you can choose to deny it to your enemies, you can choose to get the units) 2. Harder to implement, but more authentic and more strategic depth.(You get the options like 1. but you get three options how to get the units which are also more authentic, and the outpost get's more strategic depth.) I personally prefer the second option. To be blunt, I don't like the capturing, except for the destroying and gaining resources. EDIT: If my idea would not be a option, I would prefer the Age of Empires 3 way over capturing. I will try to come up with alternatives. From a design view, it is very good to think of things that would be easy to implement, and see if it would be just as good as a idea that would be harder to implement, I fully agree. But do not make the mistake of favoring everything that is easier, just because it is easier. The game might turn into something bland and repetive. (If I look at the design document and everything I read that is planned, I do not believe the game will turn bland and repetive. But I can't judge until I have played. Right now the game is certainly not bland, but it is repetive to my standards. I also feel like the game lacks depth right now, but I guess depth is something I personally like. Depth is not really needed I guess, Company of Heroes does not have that much depth to me, but the multiplayer can be really adrenaline rushing (dying means paying, games can be really close with points), something I never had with Age of Empires multiplayer so I doubt I would have it with 0 A.D. (this sentence not meant degrading) Some of my concerns. Might not be shared by the majority.) EDIT: Don't get me wrong though, this project is shaping up very nicely! Just some little concerns. I thought of talking about much more but I am already going way off topic. _______________________________________________________________ EDIT: Removed and put into the right thread.
    1 point
  41. I'll tell a little personal story. I gave all of my classic games (Age of Empires, Lords of the Realms 2, Knights and Merchants, Empire Earth, I might forgot about one) away to a second hand shop, because it did not appeal to me anymore, not because of graphics, but the gameplay. The only game I still have is Seven Kingdoms, because while the graphics are worse as all the games I gave away, it has depth in it and so I want to keep it. When I first heard of 0 A.D. I was very interested. But my interest kind of went away, because I felt like it was nothing new compared to Age of Empires. When I thought, let's try it out, and saw it had some new features. I was sold. There are enough people who would be fine with 0 A.D. if it keeps very true to Age of Kings. But if you do that you might lose other players. (note the underlying of very true, keeping true to the game is a good thing!) So what I advice to the developers to 0 A.D. to get the best out of this project keep true to the original games, but make it possible to also enjoy new features. I feel like we can please both type of players. And I'll be honest. I can play something very intensely for several months, but if the game is repetitive and does not have that much depth, I could forget about it for a longer time than I played it intensively. (Fun fact: sometimes I am very passionate about a particular subject, I research much about the subject, post on the forum a lot, but then; I'm vanished from the forum and possibly on another doing the same thing) New factions and units are always nice, but does not change that for me. I always try out mods for Company of Heroes that do this and are very enthiousastic about them when they are new. But what I do: I might try the mod in multiplayer a few times until I get bored (if it's the same as Company of Heroes but in a different setting (Modern Combat mod) or if the gameplay does not appeal to me (Blitzkrieg mod; a "realism" mod). What I do with new factions and units; I play a skirmish, check out and try out all the new goodies. When I'm done with the new stuff, I uninstall the mod. My little story is not ment as a warning and certainly does not apply to all players, but I thought it was good to at least tell how I react.
    1 point
  42. Yes, I edited my above post for this. There are a high percentage of people who like what I think Alpha123 likes. But there are also players who would like new features/more depth/something new/something from another game like AOE 3, Praetorians, Empire Earth 2 etc. I feel like both type of people (and if there are, other people) should be pleased. As long as it is doable or possible of course! My idea might be a bit too difficult/demanding to make.
    1 point
  43. I forgot to say, I prefer it in the gameplay rules too. Though I can understand some people do not want it on their scenarios so I would like to have it both having it in the options for players and for scenarios optional for the scenario maker. One reason for prefering Spahbod idea, is a very good one; when the capturing is implemented in the game it is much more easier to do it this way. I prefer my own (second) idea. Because while I think it takes much more time to do, it has more depth in it. You have much choices: -do I destroy, to gain some resources and or deny it to the enemy (Note that I shamelesly took this idea from Spahbod) If not: -do I give them resources, which means I need to pay but I won't lose soldiers -do I attack, which means not having to pay but I could lose soldiers -do I put the outpost there and wait till they alliance me? I might lose them if the outpost is destroyed. Maybe someone has some good ideas to improve these two ideas, or ideas from other games. Or has a completely different idea. Feel free to share! I can understand you. Tell me if I get this wrong, but you want the game very basic; gather, build army, destroy enemy. No "side missions" so to speak. No other options that distract you from the task. I think you could like more depth in combat, but more depth as in things like diplomacy and such "side missions", it's not something for you. Do I got this right? I got the impression you are a hardcore (if I may say that) old-school Age of Empires player. Age of Empires 3 is something that would less appeal to you. I personally feel like the game could have more depth, so instead of; gather, build army, destroy enemy, I prefer the game; gather, ally that, let those kill those, trade with them, attack them, etc. I hope you understand I'm not belittling you or something (if I did, sorry, not my intention). I can understand your view, I hope you also take into consideration some people would like more depth. But I feel you do, otherwise you would have said only no. I do my best to take into consideration people that would like more depth like me, and people that prefer a more static game with certain gameplay. I said in another post I feel like 0 A.D. could use more depth, but that I feel like the depth should only be as deep as you would like to make it. Say it if I got something wrong! I am making assumptions after all.
    1 point
  44. I was thinking of a poll for how the minifactions should work. But scenario options is good too. (Make another thread for it) I would think there are three types of programmers concerning 0 A.D. : 1. People who can program and like 0 A.D. and want to improve it 2. People looking for a way to improve their programming 3. People who can program and look for a challenge Advertising 0 A.D. through youtube, Facebook, twitter (which is done) seems the best way to get these people, and make good lists of what needs to be done. I think number 1 people will always contribute to 0 A.D, but the other 2 people need to know what they can do for 0 A.D.
    1 point
  45. Dinosaurs!? Did I hear dinosaurs!? When I was a very little kid I used to always take dinosaur books from the library (but also about ancient armies, pirates etc.) If you haven't seen Walking with Dinosaurs you are not a true dinosaur fan, though Walking with Dinosaurs has errors in it. Good thinking. I like these ideas. Everyone has their taste. I never play gears or the polar maps because I play partly for the atmosphere and authencity. So in my opinion fictional maps are fine, but it should be very clear they are. I would be very dissapointed if I clicked on a scenario or biome that says: "Brittania heathlands" or "Persian highlands" and I play the map and it has buildable dragons, citizen-soldiers replaced with robots and a tinky winky, and the map itself is drawed like male genetals. I know, I know, that's a big exeggeration, but I think this makes my point very clear. I don't play scenarios either because of the population, even without lag I prefer to play around 200, I hope it is a priority to make population customizable for scenarios. And people who have a not-so-great computer can't possibly play scenerios, which is kind of sad.
    1 point
  46. Seven Kingdoms had neutral settlements (one building consisting of several tiny buildings would portray this, Seven Kingdoms had very unrealistic scaling). You could build a barracks next to it and if you had a general with high stats (low stat generals do not work that well, and are bad for your soldiers loyality), it would slowly lose it's neutrality. You could also pay them to make this go faster or you could attack the building but when you did that villagers would attack you and the settlement would lose villagers which in Seven Kingdoms are needed to make soldiers. Seven Kingdoms is a great unique game and since it is free I really suggest to try it out so you can see how everything works. We could use somethings of the system of Seven Kingdoms to make the Age of Empires 3 system more interesting. Instead of natives instantly becoming available when you build something (the outpost would be great for this!), it could take time before the natives allow you to recruit soldiers. You would be able to speed up this progress by giving them rescources. Seven Kingdoms had a very good diplomacy. Let me explain (I only played singleplayer by the way): In the beginning you are all neutral. You can request to trade, the ai sometimes declines this. You can choose to be friendly, which I believe is needed to trade. You can also choose to ally, then you can see eachother. You can also give eachother technologies (Seven Kingdoms had siege engines which needed to be researched in science labs) and of course money, but also food. The Ai would sometimes ask for some money (and food and technologies). In Seven Kingdoms it seemed like AI had different personalities, because some did not ask, they were demanding that you give them lots of money or else they would .... you up!. Sometimes AI would also ask you to have a trade embargo (rescources were very different in Seven Kingdoms and were rather scarce, but very important to generate money) or declare war to a faction (Seven Kingdoms had a reputation system something I don't see happening in 0 A.D, low reputation ment your troops became less loyal and would go to another kingdom, and villagers would rebel if reputation was low. You can't just go to war in Seven Kingdoms because that means you'll have angry people and unloyal soldiers). Back to the AI. If you did not give them money they requested or demanded, they would break alliances with you or break trade with you and in extreme cases declare war to you. Though some did not seem to care if you did not do it. I would love to have a better diplomaticy system similar to Seven Kingdoms, but without things that could not be done (reputation and loyality that kind of stuff can't be done) Many of the features (reputation, loyality, generals) of Seven Kingdoms do not fit in 0 A.D, but it's worth to take a look at and take inspiration from it. I recommend to take a look at it. It takes some time to get used to but it's great. I'm not talking about the disgrace called Seven Kingdoms: conquest, but the old game Seven Kingdoms. Gamespot gave this game a 9 out of 10, and it has a user score of 8.4, I think the user score is lower because it is not beginner friendly (I got this game as a kid, and it took me 5 years to get used to the game and then I loved it). I would like it if you did this. And in name of the holy spaghetti monster, check out Seven Kingdoms everybody!
    1 point
  47. Let me be clear. I have no intention of pressuring the team into making something. But like you said, it can be no harm in researching and thinking of a concept. And if I am capable, I would like to do this (partly) myself. Yeah. And I was thinking, too generic isn't that much fun and unique. It's a game. Though something like helmets is too inaccurate. But some Maasai features and Zulu features would be fine as long as it isn't too obvious and I think lots of people would enjoy it, if not, than they should give us detailed information how they should look. Here some of my favorite tribal warriors (some weren't allowed on the forum): (The spear) I think I'm going to draw some concepts in flash, mainly for the purpose of fun.
    1 point
  48. I hope I'm allowed to bump & double post, if not, please tell me and I won't do it again. I will not post after a double post but edit instead. _________________________________________________________ Ok, I read the thread again. Faction idea (very radical, I don't know if you guys like and I have no idea if it's possible/balanced): Scythians start with the regular units (1 cav, 2 archers, 2 melee, 4 female). But no civil centre, this will only become available in the city phase when they will settle down along with farms. This is the nomad phase. Scythian citizen soldiers can unpack houses (huts) which costs 40 food 10 wood since they are tents and not wooden and stone houses. The tents can be build in neutral territory (not enemy territory I think), and can be unpacked, to unpack order a citizen-soldier to get in the building and click unpack which will grand the rescources back. These huts are very weak and so easily destroyed. I think it would be too annoying to have these tents lose health, but maybe they should. The huts do not make friendly territory. The Scythians can build a larger tent, which will be able to store both food and wood, not stone and metal (stone and metal will be able to be gathered in the city phase). This building can be build in neutral territory. I think it would be good if it would work like the houses (pack unpack). Like houses it would be cheap, like 80 food 20 wood, but weak. I have no idea if the Scythains would have herd animals, if so they could get acces to these in the larger tent. I think they should have acces to cavalry in here. The city phase is when the Scythians will be able to settle down and farm. (I read some Scythians did settle down and have archiculture, and the name city phase makes sense this way). They will have to build the civil center, which only costs wood, and then they can build a building that gathers metal and stone. That's the idea. Additions? Opinion? Bad idea? Potential good idea? Forbidden units: -slings -skirmishers (throwing spears) -?siege ram? (balance problem?) Forbidden buildings: -watchtowers -pallisade -wall ______________________________________________________________________________________ Other idea: Special technology for the Scythians is barbed arrow heads and poison arrow heads. The Scythians can choose between the two, the poison arrows I explained above, the barbed arrow head could work like this: -arrow damage buff -arrow damage buff + damage over time for a very limited time (unlike the poison arrow, which would do damage over until the unit dies unless healed)
    1 point
  49. What have Mongolians have to do with Scythians besides both being nomadic? ______________________________________________________________ Aaahhh the Scythians. I have heard stories about these people. Appearently they smoked some kind of weed. And I've read they used arrows with poison (could be a unique gameplay element; units affected will very slowly lose health and die unless you heal them). Besides that. A nomad faction would be very interesting, but how do you do it? Fragile and cheap structures that can be build outside of own territory (maybe make them lose health like the outpost to balance it futher?)? But stronger buildings can only be build inside territory (I see in this thread they also made stone structures). Obviously, the Scythians should not be able to build walls, not even pallisades. About the weed which I wasn't sure about, this is where I got that from: http://listverse.com/2010/01/05/top-10-interesting-facts-about-the-scythians/ It talks about female warriors, perhaps all the Scythian females (I mean citizen) should be able to fight, be citizen-soldiers. This would also make them defending their nomadic outposts easier. They should not have siege weapons, but would that be balanced? If the poison element would be added, you could have very effective raids, so siege weapons may be less important.
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...